BV  811  .D63  1886 
Ditzler,  J. 
Baptism 


BAPTISM: 


By  J.  DITZLER,  D.D. 


"PROVE  ALL  THINGS."— Paw?. 


Nashville,  Tenn.  : 
SOUTHERN  METHODIST  PUBLISHING  HOUSE. 

1886. 


COPYRIGHTED.  1881. 


To  AIy  Beloved  and  Esteemed  Former 
Preceptor, 

Rev.  B.  H.  McCOWN,  D.D. 

of  axchoragk,  ky. 

This  Work  is  Respectfully  Dedicated 

By  the  Author. 


Rev.  B.  H.  McCown,  D.D.: 

Dear  Sir — For  several  years  after  attending  college  I 
had  the  honor  of  pursuing  the  languages  under  your  di- 
rection. You  were  present,  as  you  told  me,  during  the 
discussion  between  Mr.  Campbell  and  Rice  at  Lexington, 
Ky.  Elder  A.  Campbell,  as  the  debate  shows,  selected 
you  as  a  most  proper  authority  to  whom,  on  his  part,  he 
preferred  referring  a  philological  point  in  dispute.  You 
are  presumed,  therefore,  on  both  sides  of  this  controversy, 
to  be  an  impartial  and  able  witness.  Not  on  this  account 
only,  but  because  of  your  former  kindness  toward  and  in- 
terest in  the  Author,  I  have  dedicated  this  Book,  the  result 
of  so  much  pains  and  toil,  to  you,  as  an  humble  token  of 
regard,  and  subscribe  myself. 

Yours  in  Christ, 

J.  DITZLER. 
Long  VIEW,  Louisville,  Ky.,  1880. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Introduction. 

Dr.  T.  O.  Siimmers  justly  complains  to  Bishop  Andrew 
of  the  many  trashy  works  on  baptism.  Rev.  J.  D.  Hud- 
son, of  Alabama,  does  the  same,  regretting  the  common- 
place repetitions  of  the  various  compilations  on  this  sub- 
ject. While  Drs.  M.  Stuart,  Rice,  Rosser,  Chapman,  Seiss, 
Hibbard,  E.  Beecher,  Edwards,  Bishop  Merrell,  and  Sum- 
mers have  done  excellent  service,  it  can  not  be*  stated  that 
they  have  thrown  any  new  light  on  the  subject,  and  it 
really  stands  where  it  was  left  by  Lightfoot  in  the  seven- 
teenth century.  We  will  have  occasion  to  point  out  im- 
portant facts  on  this  subject  on  many  occasions.  As  a 
sample  of  the  carelessness  of  writers  and  their  indifference 
to  the  progress  of  investigation,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty 
to  select  one  sample  page  from  the  work  of  Dr.  Summers 
himself.  We  should  not  do  this  but  for  his  repeating  it  in 
editions  that  ought  to  have  corrected  the  blunders,  espe- 
cially when  the  bishops  had  honored  his  book  as  our  stand- 
ard on  baptism.  In  the  "New  and  Revised  Edition '^  of 
1878,  from  a  revised  edition  of  June  6,  1874,  after  we  had 
published  correct  reports  of  those  authors.  Dr.  Summers 
in  one  single  page  (222)  thus  copies  some  authorities: 

BAPTIDZO. 

"Gazes:  hrecho,  pluno,  louo,  antlo.''  This  is  a  mere 
scrap  of  Gazes's  definition,  yet  the  same  may  be  found  in 
a  host  of  compilations.     Turn  now  to  our  list  of  lexicons 

(5) 


G  BAPTISM. 

and  see  liow  defective  is  the  above.  He  reports  Scapula 
as  saying  it  means  '^  to  dip/^  He  does  not  say  so.  He 
reports  him  as  saying  that  it  means  ^'to  dye.''  This 
is  preposterous.  He  says  Stephanus  gives  '^dip."  He 
does  not.  He  thus  reports  Schleusner;  "To  plunge,  im- 
merse ;  to  cleanse,  wash,  purify  with  water,  etc.''  Turn  to 
my  list  and  see  how  defective  is  this  as  a  citation  of  the 
great  German. 

He  quotes  Suidas  as  defining  it,  "To  sink,  plunge, 
immerse,  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  jmrify/'  Suidas  does  not 
define  the  word,  and  this  is  simply  repeating  the  blunders 
of  former  compilations.  These  are  only  a  part  of  the  er- 
rors of  a  part  of  one  page !  Is  not  a  text-book  accurate 
at  least  in  all  citations  and  texts  most  desirable? 

Gale,  Booth,  Carson,  Cox,  E.  Beecher,  Conant,  Dale, 
Moses  Stuart  profess  to  treat  the  subject  philologiGolly,  as 
also  A.  Campbell,  Prof  Ripley,  and  Ingham  of  London. 
Conant  being  so  favorably  surrounded  excelled  all  men 
in  collecting  classic  occurrences  of  haptldzo.  Dale  stands 
next  in  point  of  merit  there,  and  before  all  others  in  his 
research  in  patristic  literature  on  Mode,  though  of  little 
value;  for  after  the  third  century,  not  to  say  the  close  of 
the  first,  small  is  the  help  we  get  i^MlologiGally,  save  of 
the  few  whose  work  as  translators  compelled  them  to  be 
philological  and  not  so  dogmatic,  not  to  say  superstitious. 
While  Dr.  Dale  did  much  in  Latin  and  Greek  literatures 
we  think  he  failed  as  a  philologist  in  toto,  as  will  be  abun- 
dantly shown  when  we  come  to  the  classics  on  bapto  and 
haptldzo . 

The  utterly  unscientific  method  always  followed  on  this 
subject  by  both  sides  may  well  account  for  the  unsettled 
state  of  the  controversy.  Long  delay  in  the  correct  and 
complete  solution   of  a  disturbing  question  is  not  proof 


INTRODUCTION.  / 

that  the  friends  of  truth  and  Christian  fraternity  may  not 
hope  for  a  complete  sohition. 

To  tlie  hishops,  the  many  ministers  of  both  the  great 
wings  of  Methodism,  many  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional ministers,  who  for  ten  years  past  have  urged  us  to 
publish  the  result  of  our  labors  and  researches  on  this 
question,  we  return  our  grateful  thanks.  Our  delay  has 
been  unavoidable  from  1869,  but  afforded  opportunity  to 
incorporate  refutations  of  the  most  recent  blunders  of 
many  authors,  and  to  add  the  facts  developed  by  Max 
Miiller  confirming  the  views  and  methods  always  main- 
tained by  us  on  the  science  of  language. 

It  has  cost  us  much  pains  to  adapt  the  work  to  both 
the  learned  and  the  unlearned.  To  do  this  we  have  kept 
the  quotations  that  are  in  the  languages  in  foot-notes  as 
\vell  as  some  more  elaborate  criticisms,  so  as  not  to  im- 
pede the  plain  English  scholar,  and  yet  enable  him  to  see 
the  force  of  the  most  learned  arguments  if  he  choses  to 
read  the  notes. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  give  prominence  to  the  ancient 
versions  very  far  beyond  other  works  on  this  subject,  for 
most  just  reasons.  Our  opponents  have  attached  the 
greatest  importance  to  this  field.  It  will  be  seen  by  com- 
parison that  as  yet  the  field  had  not  been  touched,  com- 
paratively, by  the  one  side — excessively  misused  by  the 
other. 

It  will  be  seen  how  lexicons  were  almost  totally  mis- 
quoted, the  original  generally  not  given,  and  the  grer.t 
masters,  as  a  rule,  wholly  ignored,  or  so  indifferently  cited 
as  to  leave  the  reader  in  total  ignorance  of  what  they  said. 
Many  samples  will  be  presented.  In  Oriental  languages 
we  produce  from  their  original  works  the  great  masters, 
Schindler,  Buxtorf,  Castell,  Fiirst,  Leigh,  etc.;   in  Greek 


8  BAPTISM. 

classics,  Passovv,  Rost,  Palm,  Pape,  as  the  most  accurate 
and  learned  and  recent;  Schneider,  Gazes,  Wahl,  Schleus- 
ner,  earlier;  and  among  the  older  lexicons,  classic  and 
biblical,  Stephanas,  Suicer,  Stokius,  etc. 

We  flatter  ourselves  that  we  have  exhibited  the  exact 
use  of  classic  Greek.  We  have  aimed  to  point  out  its 
abuses  and  cited  authorities  in  abundance  on  such  mat- 
ters. In  philology,  in  the  science  of  languages,  in  the  dis- 
covery of  primary  meanings,  the  classic  Greek  is  of  vast 
importance.  The  difference  between  haptidzo  as  a  clas- 
sic and  religious  Avord  we  have  aimed  to  make  so  clear 
that  only  very  willful  stupidity  can  reject  the  evidences. 

Since  all  my  manuscripts  were  ready  for  the  press 
(1872-1875)  the  Carrollton  debate  occurred  between  J.  R. 
Graves,  LL.D,,  and  myself,  and  was  published  by  the 
Baptist  House  in  Memphis,  Tenn.,  under  the  eye  and  in 
the  same  house  where  the  doctor  edits  his  paper.  The 
Baptist.  It  is  with  regret  that  we  have  to  expose  the 
astounding  conduct  of  our  opponent  in  that  debate.  Af- 
ter I  had  written  out  my  speeches,  as  agreed,  and  left 
them  with  the  publisher.  Dr.  Mayfield,  and  left  for  Texas, 
Dr.  Graves  took  out  my  speeches — on  my  return  I  saw 
him  with  them — and  rewrote  all  of  his.  This  was  done 
after  we  both  had  our  names,  February  15,  1876,  sub- 
scribed to  the  declaration  that  it  was  a  correct  report 
of  tlie  debate.  As  the  phonographer  failed  utterly  to  get 
my  speeches,  speaking  so  rapidly,  I  had  to  write  them 
out  from  my  notes.  All  will  see  that  much  of  minor  im- 
l)ortance  and  nearly  all  repartee  would  be  lost — unavoid- 
ably so.  After  thus  subscribing  ourselves,  and  after  he 
had  professedly  published  his  speeches  on  Mode  in  his 
paper.  Dr.  G.  took  my  manuscripts  and  rcAvrote  all  of  his, 
adding  as  many  as  six,  eight,  ten,  and  even  twelve  pages 


INTKODUCTIOX.  9 

of  new  matter  at  a  time  in  single  speeches,  not  a  line  of 
which  was  used  during  debate,  and  leaving  out  what  he 
did  say  wherever  exposed.  Whatever  he  says  of  cove- 
nants is  just  the  reverse  of  the  facts  in  toto.  As  I  re- 
'  turned  from  Texas  through  Memphis  I  examined  parts  of 
several  of  his  speeches  on  Mode  —  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth,  besides  much  already  added  from  the  eighth  on. 
I  sat  down  in  their  room  and  added  a  few  pages  to  my 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  speeches  to  meet  some  of  his  addi- 
tions from  the  sixth  to  twelfth,  and  rewrote  my  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  in  reply  to  his,  making  them  far  longer  than 
half-hour  speeches  can  be  made;  added  several  pages  to 
the  sixteenth  on  Mode,  and  never  was  permitted  to  see  his 
seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nineteenth  speeches  on  Mode, 
nor  any  thereafter,  not  even  the  proof-sheets.  Not  a  page 
after  ray  seventeenth  speech  in  the  book  was  proofed  by 
me.  In  these  he  makes  his  daring  assertions  he  dared  not 
make  when  I  was  there.  He  purposely  delayed  his  man- 
uscripts under  various  pretenses  till  a  public  debate  at 
Stanford,  Ky.,  iVpril  2d  to  9th,  called  me  away.  I  Avrote 
for  the  proofs  of  our  speeches,  but  neither  his  nor  mine 
were  ever  sent  to  me.  One  of  my  speeches  of  half  hour 
I  rewrote,  making  it  a  reply  to  three  or  four  he  had  slip- 
ped in  without  my  knowledge  of  the  enormous  changes. 
The  seventeenth,  though  I  never  got  his  seventeenth  as 
rewritten  by  himself,  I  prepared  in  McKenzie,  Tenn., 
where  I  stopped  on  my  way,  and  where  I  wrote  for  a  re- 
turn of  my  last  two  speeches  to  recast  them,  in  view  of 
what  he  might  do  in  his  seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nine- 
teenth speeches;  but  they  telegraphed  they  were  nearly  in 
print  and  would  be  next  day.  They  were  not  for  yet  two 
iveeks.  Innumerable  typographical  errors  blot  the  work, 
and  in  places  where  my  own  comments  were  made  and 


10  BAPTISM. 

carefully  placed  in  brackets,  the  brackets  are  removed 
and  I  charged  by  Dr.  G.  with  trying  to  impose  the  brack- 
eted words  on  the  people  as  my  own !  We  will  attend  to 
many  of  his  bold  and  reckless  assertions  in  this  work. 

In  that  debate  we  did  all  we  could  to  force  or  draw  him 
out  on  Baptist  succession,  on  history,  or  on  the  ancient 
versions,  and  on  them  all  he  was  dumb  as  an  oyster.  Yet 
in  the  published  debate  he  fills  whole  speeches  with  a  reck- 
less mass  of  crudities,  defies  me,  and  challenges  refutation. 
Well  he  knew  there  would  be  in  the  book  no  answer,  be- 
cause I  would  never  see  it  till  the  book  should  be  in  print! 
He  was  afflicted  with  a  painful  soreness  of  throat,  spoke 
very  slowly — on  an  average  not  over  one  word  to  my 
two.  Hence  his  opening  speech  on  Mode,  on  which  he 
was  one  hour  and  ten  minutes — extra  time  allowed  to 
finish  his  points — makes  but  twelve  pages  and  six  lines. 
His  next  full  half-hour  speech  fills  four  pages  and  a  third 
solid.  Compare  these  with  those  half-hour  speeches  that 
have  eighteen,  twenty,  twenty -two,  twenty-seven  pages, 
much  of  it  finer  print,  and  all  can  see  the  truth.  Again, 
let  any  one  examine  his  first  eight  or  even  ten  speeches  on 
Mode  and  see  how  pointedly  they  are  refuted ;  his  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth,  that  I  caught  him  slipping  in  ^'on  the 
sly"  as  I  came  from  Texas;  see  their  exposure,  and  he 
will  see  enough  to  prove  that  I  never  saw  the  remainder 
of  his  speeches. 


BAPTISM — AmilNISTRATOPv — DESIGN.  1 1 


CHAPTER  II. 
Baptism — Administrator — Design. 

Ill  preparing  a  book  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  it  is  not 
deemed  necessary  to  treat  of  the  administrator  of  bap- 
tism, because:  First.  All  Protestant  churches  are  practi- 
cally agreed  on  this  subject,  whatever  may  be  the  abstract 
tlieories  of  some  parties.  As  a  rule  only  the  ministers  of 
all  these  bodies  baptize.  Second.  So  far  as  theory  or 
practice  goes,  the  New  Testament  does  not  throw  any  light 
upon  it  of  a  positive  character.  We  know  not  who  bap- 
tized the  converts  of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii,  41)  nor  the  first 
Gentile  converts  (Acts  x,  44-47).  We  never  will  know 
who  did  the  baptizing  among  Christ\s  earlier  disciples 
(John  iii,  22-25;  iv,  2)  before  he  had  selected  his  apostles. 
Compare  Mark  i,  14,  16-20;  Luke  iv  and  v  entire,  and  vi, 
13-16.  There  is  no  record  where  any  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles  ever  baptized  any  person ;  and  Paul,  the  one 
chosen  out  of  the  due  order — the  fourteenth  one— really 
boasts  of  having  baptized  only  the  few  named  in  1  Corinth- 
ians i,  14-17,  in  person.  Third.  The  fathers  allowed  of 
baptism  by  laymen  as  well  as  by  ministers,  yet  mainly  the 
ministers  baptized. 

As  to  the  design  of  baptism,  we  will  treat  of  that  in  a 
separate  work,  the  errors  in  the  design  being  too  grave  and 
numerous  to  be  fully  exposed  and  the  true  import  of  bap- 
tism set  forth  in  a  convenient  volume.  But  the  real,  the 
scriptural  design  we  propose  to  give,  as  it  will  shed  light 
on  the  mode  as  well  as  on  the  subjects  of  the  rite. 


1 2  BAPTISM.* 

The  immersionists  hold  that  ^•immersion  was  the  bap- 
tism commanded  by  Christ  and  practiced  under  the  apos- 
tles/' Of  the  most  prominent  writers  of  this  class  we 
may  name  in  Europe  and  the  United  States,  Drs.  Gale, 
Carson,  Cox,  Hinton,  Fuller,  Booth,  Conant,  Mell,  Rip- 
ley, Ingham,-'^  A.  Campbell,  L.  B.  Wilkes,  J.  R.  Graves, 
Brents  (G.  W.,  of  Tennessee).  These  in  sul)stance  rely 
on  the  following  assumptions  to  sustain  this  hypothesis, 
namely,  that 

1.  Baptism  is  an  anglicized  Greek  word,  baptisma 
(i3a-Ti(T/ux),  from  the  verb  haptidzOj  and  it  is  derived  from 
the  root  bapfo,  and  has  a  specific  meaning  which  is  im- 
merse, dip,  plunge.     They  assert  that, 

2.  This  is  sustained  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all 
ancient  and  modern  Greek  lexicons  or  dictionaries,  which 
do  always  give  immerse,  dip,  plunge  as  the  meaning  of 
bapttidzo,  and  never  sprinkle  or  pour. 

3.  The  Greek  literature  of  nearly  two  thousand  years 
fully  sustains  this,  and  is  the  only  real  standard  of  appeal. 

4.  All  translations,  ancient  and  modern,  support  this 
position  by  rendering  bapjto  and  baptidzo  by  words  that 
mean  to  immerse,  never  by  words  meaning  to  sprinkle  or 
pour ;  that  the  ancient  versions  being  made  by  the  most 
competent  of  all  witnesses,  are  decisive  of  this  question. 

5.  Baptidzo  and  bapto,  its  root,  are  translations  of  tlie 
Hebrew  words  tabal  and  tzeba.  that  always  mean  to  im- 
merse, dip,  or  plunge. 

6.  That  these  facts  are  admitted  also  by  all  the.  eminent 

pedobaptist  critics   and  scholars;   but  they  set  up  tradi- 

*  Ingham,  1865,  a  very  exhaustive  work,  compiled  merely,  has  it 
thus:  1.  Lexicons;  2.  Examples,  especially  in  classic  usage;  3.  Ver- 
sions, especially  ancient — e.  g.  Syriac,  etc.;  ...  9,  The  word  can  not 
represent  actions  as  distinct  as  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  immersing  or 
dipping.     (Pages  27,  38,  575.) 


BA  PTISM — ADMINISTr.ATOR — DESIGN.  1 3 

tions  and  the  authority  of  the  church  as  the  grand  reason 
for  aifusion^  claiming  the  right  to  change  the  ordinances 
of  the  church. 

7.  That  the  practice  of  the  early  centuries  of  the 
church  was  altogether  by  immersion,  and  that  no  other 
practice  was  allowed  till  about  the  thirteenth  century, 
save  in  case  of  sickness,  and  such  cases  were  illegal,  not 
"  ecclesiastical. '^ 

8.  That  the  prepositions  used  in  connection  with  these 
words,  such  as  en,  els,  connecting  them  with  the  element — 
baptize  ^'in;^^  went  into  the  water;  and  ek,  apo,  out  of, 
from,  indicating  emersion,  ^Mielping  out  of  the  water'' — 
strengthen  these  arguments. 

9.  That  the  allusions  to  baptism  in  the  New  Testament, 
such  as  Romans  vi,  3,  4;  Colossians  ii,  11,  12;  1  Cor- 
inthians X,  1,  2 ;  Hebrews  x,  22,  clearly  demonstrate  im- 
mersion as  the  only  apostolic  practice,  designed  to  sym- 
bolize the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

The  places  where  baptism  is  represented  as  occurring — 
in  Jordan,  **in  ^non  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was 
much  water  there";  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  etc.,  addi- 
tionally strengthen  this  view. 

To  give  force  and  certainty  to  these  assumptions  all 
immersionists  hold  to  certain  theories  as  absolutely  set- 
tled, undeniable;  viz: 

1.  That  in  a  given  period  and  summary  of  literature, 
not  at  all  commensurate  with  the  actual  literature  of  a 
language,  and  all  dating  centuries  later  than  the  origin  of 
the  language,  and  later  than  much  of  its  best  literature, 
the  prevailing  meaning  of  a  word  at  any  such  later  period 
is  its  primary  meaning! 

2.  That  if  a  word  ever  means,  or  implies,  to  dip, 
plunge,  immerse,  it  can  never  mean,  or  apply  to,  sprinkle 


14  BAPTISM. 

or  pour:  and  if  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  it  can  never  mean 
(lip,  plunge,  immerse. 

o.  That  wash,  purify,  cleanse  are  meanings  of  haptldzo 
\\\  the  New  Testament  and  Apocrypha  because  derived 
from  immerse.  Hence  the  New  Testament  often  alludes 
to  baptism  as  a  washing,  cleansing,  etc.  (Eph.  v,  26;  Titus 
iii.  5;  Acts  xxii,  16;  Heb.  x,  22,  etc.),  while  all  ancient 
versions  render  baptize  by  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  etc.,  as 
well  as  more  recent  ones  in  the  sixteenth  century.* 

4.  That  classic  Greek  is  the  same  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment Greek,  and  that  baptidzo  is  to  be  explained  and  its 
New  Testament  use  determined  by  the  classics ! 

5.  The  less  critical  also  advance  the  following  absurdi- 
ties as  canons  of  interpretation,  viz :  That  to  sprinkle  an 
object  is  ^'  to  scatter  it  in  drops."  Hence  baptidzo  can  not 
mean  to  sprinkle,  to  pour  upon,  unless  the  object  is  invari- 
ably "scattered  in  drops.''  A.  Campbell,  G.  W.  Brents, 
and  J.  R.  Graves  adhere  to  this. 

6.  A  number  of  immersionists  maintain  that  if  bap- 
tidzo means  to  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour,  then  no  one  is  bap- 
tized until  all  three  of  these  acts  are  accomplished  upon 
him!  We  may  hope  that  this  silly  sophistry  has  ceased 
to  be  repeated,  especially  as  A.  Campbell  renders  baptidzo 
by  some  twenty  or  more  diiferent  words,  Conant  by  four- 
teen, etc. ;  while  drow^n,  intoxicate,  soak,  make  drunk  figure 
in  all  immersion  works  as  among  the  meanings. 

7.  They  hold  that  dip,  immerse,  plunge  are  all  syn- 
onymous in  meaning.  J.  E,.  Graves,  Alexander  Camp- 
bell, Wilkes,  etc. 

We  shall  subject  all  these  assumptions  to  a  careful 
examination  and  test  of  facts. 

^^  Syrlac,  amad,  fiecho ;  Arabic,  nmnda,  gasala ;  Latin,  ^aro;  German, 
if^aftchen.;  etc. 


ORIGIN    AND    DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  15 


CHAPTER  III. 
Origin  AifD  Design  of  Baptism. 

If  the  origin  and  design  of  baptism  has  ever  been 
explained,  its  real  propriety  presented,  we  have  never  met 
with  it.  Nor  have  we  ever  seen  an  explanation  of  the 
relation  between  the  washing  [baptism]  with  water  and 
the  cleansings  effected  by  blood  in  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers.  Tracing  Christian  baptism  through  pros- 
elyte baptism  as  Vossius,  Witsius,  Lightfoot,  etc.  do,  does 
not  bring  us  any  nearer  the  matter.  The  real  origin  and 
design  of  baptism  remains  unexplained.  The  careless 
and  excessively  loose  treatment  it  has  received  may  well 
account  for  its  horrid  distortions. 

Every  rite  must  have  some  reason  in  it  in  the  element 
used,  if  elements  arc  used,  and  in  the  then  current  force 
of  the  word  as  used  by  the  writers  or  speakers.  Hence 
we  must  look  for  the  origin  of  this  rite  in  the  religious 
import  of  the  word  icash  (rachats  in  Hebrew),  cleanse , 
and  in  the  symbolism  of  water. 

Among  all  nations,  in  every  European  language,  Egyp- 
tian, and  those  of  Asia  Minor,  water  represented  inno- 
cence and  purity — cleansing.  Cleansing  made  the  party 
innocent.  The  outward  symbolized  and  was  declarative 
of  his  innocence,  whether  actually  cleansed  from  actual 
guilt  or  really  innocent. 

In  Homer's  day,  a  thousand  years  before  Christ,  it  was 
an  old  custom  for  parties  before  going  to  prayer  to  wash 


16  BAPTISM, 

themselves  at  the  hoary  sea,  or  besprinkle  themselves 
with  clean  water  before  praying  to  Minerva  (Athene.)^ 
They  sprinkled  with  living  water  candidates  for  the  Eleu- 
sis.  In  Ovid,  Homer,  Diogenes,  Virgil,  Porphyry,  He- 
rodotus, etc.  these  washings  are  often  alluded  to  in  con- 
nection with  devotional  exercises.  Originally  symbolic 
of  innocence,  purity,  absence  of  guilt,  it  came  to  be  cor- 
rupted in  use  as  a  real  agency  in  purification,  as  an  expia- 
tion of  crime.  To  this  base  use  of  it  Tertullian  alludes 
at  length. 

In  the  earliest  times,  as  Homer  relates  the  earlier  hea- 
then customs,  nearer  the  purer  days  of  their  religion,  these 
washings  and  cleansings  were  symbolic  of  the  object  of 
their  prayers  and  devotions — purity  by  which  they  became 
innocent.  Hence  they  besprinkled  themselves  witli  water 
as  the  first  step.     It  was  not  then  initiatory  into  any  body. 

In  the  Bible  water  symbolizes  innocence  and  purity — 
the  one  being  implied  in  the  other :  ^'  I  will  wash  my  hands 
in  innocency;  so  will  I  compass  thine  altar,  O  Lord'^ 
(Ps.  xxvi,  6;  Ixxiii,  13). f  Here  it  anticipates  the  object 
of  devotion — purity  and  innocence  before  God — symbol- 
izes that  object.  Pilot,  recognizing  this  Jewish  use  of  wa- 
ter, washed  his  hands  in  token  of  innocence  as  to  Christ's 
blood. 

As  religious  innocence,  implying  purity,  can  be  had  only 
through  the  merit  of  "the  blood  of  sprinkling ''  (1  Peter  i, 
2;  Heb.  x,  22 ;  ix,  13-19;  xii,  24;  Num.  xix,  9-13)  applied 
by  the  Spirit,  the  water  comes  to  represent  the  Spirit  by 

*■  In  the  full  citation  in  Clemens  Alexandrinus  where  the  passage  is 
given  in  full. 

tin  this  Psalm,  Ixxiii,  13,  "I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain,  and 
washed  my  hands  in  innocency."  We  must  not  forget  the  constant  fact 
that  the  water  and  Spirit  are  named  or  implied  together  throughout  the 
Bible — one  inward,  the  other  outward. 


ORIGIN    A  XL)    DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  17 

which  we  are  actually  cleansed  as  to  its  mode  or  action, 
as  well  as  its  real  design.  Ps.  li,  1-10;  Is.  i,  16;  iv,  4; 
xliv,  3  ;  Ezek.  xvi,  9  ;  xxxvi,  25-27  ;  Eph.  v,  25,  26 ;  Titus 
iii,  5,  6 ;  Heb.  x,  22;  with  Matt,  iii,  11,  12 ;  Acts  x,  41-44. 
^^  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized who  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well  as  luef 
The  constant  association  of  the  water  in  all  these,  as  well 
as  innumerable  other  passages,  shows  that  the  water  was 
always  symbolic  of  the  innocence  eifected  by  the  Spirit's 
application  of  Christ's  blood,  a7id  of  nothing  but  that.  It 
was  not  initiatory  into  any  thing.  Baptism  is  symbol  and 
nothing  else. 

In  Moses's  day  the  connection  of  the  water  and  the 
blood — as  blood  was  the  groundwork  of  all  religious  inno- 
cence before  God,  the  procuring  cause — is  striking.  When 
Moses  had  led  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  he  consecrated 
the  priests  and  people  with  blood  (Ex.  xxviii,  41 ;  xxix, 
16-22),  and  sprinkled  vessels,  people,  the  book,  and  taber- 
nacle with  blood  (Heb.  ix,  17-22),  and  ordained  that  the 
priests  and  people  wash  or  be  cleansed  with  water.  Ex. 
xxix,  4;  XXX,  18-22;  Lev.  viii,  4-6;  xv,  xvi ;  Num.  viii, 
7  ;  xix,  13-22.  When  David  repented  he  alluded  to  water, 
to  washing  as  a  preliminary  process  (Ps.  li,  2-10)  as  well 
as  to  the  sprinkling  w4th  blood  (verse  7,  ''  Purge  me  with 
hyssop"),  where  it  is  a  spiintual  washing  prayed  for,  as  all 
will  admit.  The  Greek,  Syriac,  and  Latin  read,  ^^  Sprinkle 
me  with  hyssop."  Hebrews  x,  22,  unites  the  blood  as  the 
real  work,  the  w^ater  as  the  symbol  of  cleansing — ^^  having 
our  hearts  sprinkled — our  bodies  washed,  etc." — i.  e.  sym- 
bolically cleansed,  as  Aaron's  was  (Lev.  viii,  6). 

When  Moses  washed  Aaron  and  his  sons  with  water 
(Lev.  viii,  6)  it  was  not  initiatory  but  preliminary.  He 
was  first  washed,  and  after  this  all  that  occurs  throughout 
2 


18  BAPTISM. 

the  long  chapter,  for  eight  days,  occurred  before  he  was  a 
priest  (chapter  ix,  1-12).  If  baptism  was  a  door  into  the 
church,  all  this  was  strange.  Stranger  still,  as  they  bap- 
tized themselves  every  day  before  performing  their  duty. 
Did  they  initiate  themselves  into  the  church  every  day? 

When  God  called  people  to  re[>ent  (Is.  i,  16),  washing 
as  a  preliminary  process,  symbolic  of  purity,  is  alluded  to 
in  the  spiritual  Avashing :  "  Wash  you,  make  you  clean'^ 
(Is.  i,  16).  In  Exodus  xxx,  18,  a  laveris  made  for  Aaron 
and  his  sons  to  ^'  wash  with  water '^  thereat — "  out  of  it,^^  in 
the  Greek  and  Hebrew.  But  what  was  the  import,  the 
design,  the  symbolism  of  the  cleansing  with  water  when  the 
party  was  sprinkled  with  blood,  etc.  for  a  purification?  In 
Leviticus  xiv,  7,  8,  51-53,  a  person  is  sprinkled  seven  times 
with  blood,  and  is  pronounced  cJean  when  sprinkhd.  After 
this  he  is  "to  wash  with  water^'  [Jiitdatij.  The  washing 
with  water  could  only  be  declarative  of  the  typical  cleans- 
ing effected  by  the  sprinkled  blood,  as  Hebrews  x,  22, 
also.  The  house  was  sprinkled  seven  times  with  blood  and 
water,  the  water  answering  to  that  of  the  person  cleansed, 
washed,  sanctified  (Num.  viii,  7  ;  Eph.  v,  26).  "And  thus 
shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them,  sprinkle  water  of 
j)urifyiug  upon  them.''  "Sanctify  and  cleanse  by  the  vash- 
ing  of  icater  by  the  word.''  Some  assert  that  this  was  with 
water  mingled  with  ashes  of  a  burnt  heifer  (Num.  xix. 
0-22).  But  that  latter  rite  was  not  introduced  till  between 
nineteen  and  thirty- seven  years  after  this.  See  Numbers, 
chapter  xx,  in  this  connection  also.  In  the  case  of  the 
water  of  separation,  of  Numbers  xix,  the  defiled  was  to 
"purify  himself  with  it."  If  he  failed  to  do  so  he  was 
unclean,  defiled  the  tabernacle,  and  was  therefore  to  be 
cut  oif.  Why?  "Because  the  water  of  separation  was 
not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  shall  be  unclean." 


ORIGIN    AND   DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  19 

The  Targum  of  Jonathan  is  very  emphatic  on  Numbers 
xix,  13,  where  the  words  ^^  shall  not  purify  himself^'  (verse 
13)  read  '^  shall  not  sprinUe  himself^' — ^*  Since  the  waters 
[^mon]  of  sprinkling  were  not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  is 
unclean;  as  yet  his  pollution  is  upon  him.  until  he  besprink- 
les himself  J^  The  Persic  is  very  much  the  same.  Paul 
(Heb.  ix,  13)  agrees  perfectly  with  this  view:  '^  Sprinkling 
the  unclean,  sanctifieth  unto  the  purifying  of  the  flesh.''  In 
this  case  again  tlie  water  betokened  the  typical  cleansing — 
was  declarative  of  its  work.  But  in  Numbers  xix,  18,  a  tent 
and  vessels  of  the  ministry  are  purified  by  only  sprinkling; 
but  the  person,  after  being  sprinkled  ^^for  a  purification 
for  sin,"  was  to  wash  his  garments  and  his  person  (Jiudat'i) 
with  water,  and  be  [thus  declared]  clean,  and  if  unclean 
it  was  ^^  because  the  water  of  separation  was  not  sprinkled 
upon  him''  (13,  20).  The  water  in  all  these  cases  be- 
tokens the  innocence  secured  by  the  blood  of  sprinkling — 
symbolic  innocence — made  actually  innocent  by  Christ's 
blood.  In  all  this  the  clear  understanding  of  the  typical 
baptisms  when  first  introduced  will  enable  us  to  see  the 
real  design  of  baptism,  as  well  as  to  understand  who  are 
proper  subjects  of  the  rite.  It  opens  the  way  to  rid  the 
public  mind  of  the  awful  abuses  that  confuse  the  mind  and 
blind  the  judgment  of  men.  Initiatory  rite,  door  into  the 
church,  sign  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  communi- 
cating grace,  for  remission  of  sins — all  these  horrid  dis- 
tortions of  the  beautiful  symbol  are  scattered  to  the  four 
winds  by  a  clear  historic  insight  into  the  rite. 

Now  these  ^^ divers  baptisms,''  as  Paul  calls  them  (Heb. 
ix,  10),  different  kinds  of  baptisms;  some  with  mere 
blood ;  some  with  mere  water  sprinkled  on  them  ;  some 
with  blood  and  running  water  administered  to  men, 
houses,  tents,  vessels;  some  with  water  mingled  with  the 


20  BAPTISM. 

ashes,  were  all  to  effect,  declare,  typical  purity.  The  per- 
son had  to  wash  after  lie  was  purified  to  declare  and  sym- 
bolize the  fact.  The  whole  truth  then  was,  Christ's 
blood — "blood  of  sprinkling''  (Heb.  x,  22;  ix,  14;  xii, 
24;  1  Pet.  1,  2) — was  the  only  real  cleansing  from  sin. 
The  blood  of  animals  typically  cleansed  from  guilt  or 
sin,  and  the  water  symbolized  to  the  person  that  he 
WO.S  cleansed. 

We  see  in  all  this  the  origin  and  design  of  baptism. 
All  these  sprinklings  Paul  calls  baptisms — ''  ivasJiings/'  in 
our  version.  But  all  parties  agree  that  the  {rachois,  louo, 
nipto)  luashing  also  of  persons  was  baptism.  And  it  is 
the  one  we  have  most  to  do  with.  It  was,  like  the  rest, 
wholly  symbolic.  That  was  its  entire  religious  meaning 
and  design.  Infants  were  subjects  of  baptism  in  its  orig- 
inal institution.  As  they  purified  by  sprinkling  them, 
Joel  ii,  15-17,  sufficiently  shows  that  infants,  ^Hhose  thai 
suck  the  breasts,'^  were  a  part  of  the  '^congregation^' 
(Greek,  eJcklesia,  church)  sanctified  by  being  "sprinkled 
with  water." 

They  are  born  innocent,  free  from  guilt,  however 
tainted  by  the  transmission  of  that  distemper,  as  Mr.  A. 
Campbell  calls  it,  that  ruined  our  race.  As  the  blood  of 
Christ  covers  their  condition,  and  they  are  innocent  and 
in  a  saved  condition — their  condition,  the  status  to  which 
conversion  brings  aliens  (Matt,  xviii,  1-5;  Eph.  ii,  13- 
19) — they  of  all  persons  are  most  properly  entitled  to 
baptism.  Water  does  not  primarily  symbolize  the  Spirit, 
but  innocence,  then  religious  purity  ^vhich  makes  inno- 
cence, because  to  an  alien  or  sinner  the  Spirit  applies 
the  merit  of  Christ's  blood  to  the  actual  washing  away 
of  actual  sins.  Therefore^  water  or  baptism  of  water, 
symbolizes   the  means,  the  Spirit's  application,  to  effect 


OEIGIX    AND    DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  21 

this  innocence  or  purity.  In  2  Maccabees  i,  18,  21,  31, 
33,  we  read  tliat  when  the  Jews  got  the  opportunity  to  re- 
form and  attend  to  their  religious  duties  they  began  by  a 
general  outward  purification.  '^  We  proposed  to  keep  the 
purifying  of  the  temple.^'  Hence,  "Nehemiah  com- 
manded the  priests  to  sprinkle  the  wood  and  the  things 
laid  thereon  with  water. '^  They  prayed  that  the  sacrifices 
might  be  sanctified  ^^  (verse  26).  The  water  was  (verse 
31)  poured  on  the  great  stones;  therewith  '^Nehemiah 
purified  the  sacrifices."  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  as 
the  Israelites  passed  the  sea  they  were  all  baptized,  in- 
fants and  adults  (1  Cor.  x,  1,  2);  to  which  David  seems  to 
allude  most  forcibly  (Ps.  Ixviii,  9)  when  God  "confirms" 
his  church  or  "heritage"  when  he  sent  a  "plentiful  rain" 
on  them. 

It  is  not  surprising  therefore  that  John  came  baptizing 
that  Christ,  Avho  was  to  thoroughly  purge  his  floor,  actu- 
ally cleanse,  purify,  and  save  the  people,  might  be  made 
manifest  to  Israel.  It  had  all  these  centuries  of  prece- 
dents in  its  favor,  that  when  John  called  the  people  to 
baptism  it  involved  and  implied  to  them  the  need  and 
desire  to  seek  purity.  Is  it  possible  it  could  ever  change 
its  import?  Nevek.  Hence  today  it  is  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity  involved  in  the  work  of  our  purification,  mak- 
ing us  innocent. 


22  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Baptism  with  Water. 

Washing  with  water  was  familiar  to  all  people.  Mode 
was  not  implied.  Washing  is  most  constantly  the  effect 
of  aifusion  all  around  us.  The  rain  washes  houses,  trees, 
plants,  herbs,  grass  from  the  dust  or  whatever  may  soil 
that  it  can  remove.  People  wash  their  hands  where 
they  dip  one  into  the  water  to  apply  it  to  both,  rubbing. 
One  may  ponr  it  on  the  hands  of  another,  as  is  often 
done,  and  as  was  the  custom  in  the  days  of  Elijah  (2 
Kings  iii,  11).  People  wash  their  faces  and  bodies  with 
water.  Baths  are  had  both  where  the  body  is  partially 
put  into  the  water  and  where  water  is  showered  from 
above,  or,  as  in  olden  times,  a  servant  pours  water  over 
the  body.  In  all  these  ways  persons  and  things  are 
washed  ivith  tcater.  Such  a  process  the  Greeks  would 
express  by  lousetai  en  hudati  {"  wash  icith  tcater  ") ;  nipsetai 
en  hudati;  or  simply  omitting  the  en  (^^with'^),  hudati, 
(^^with  icater'^).  As  the  Jews  had  been  used  to  these 
expressions  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  for  icash  we  have  bap- 
tize in  the  later  Greek  writers,  hence  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  is  not  surprising  that  there  we  have  this  form  so 
constantly  recurring. 

^'  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water.     He  shall  baptize 

you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  "^     So  Matthew,  Mark,  John 

*  Matt,  iii,  11 ;  Mark  i,  8;  John  i,  31,  32.  The  Greek  in  these  places 
is  h  vdari,  en  hudati.     In  Mark  i,  8,  however,  the  best  Greek  MSS.  have 


BAPTISM    WITH    WATER.  23 

and  Luke  and  Peter  and  Christ  declare.'^  This  is  the 
historic  and  conipreheusive  way  of*  narrating  it — baptism 
was  with  water.  Water  was  the  instrument  used  with  ichich 
people  were  baptized.  This  language  declares  the  general, 
the  universal  practice  of  baptism  with  water.  ^' He 
shall  baptize  with  (en)  the  Holy  Spirit."  Acts  x,  45:  ^^On 
the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  It  fell  on  them  (verse  44).  Now,  says  Peter, 
telling  this  t^  ^'the  apostles  and  brethren"  (Acts  xi,  1), 
^'As  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on 
us  at  the  beginning.  Tlien  remembered  I  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water, 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts 
xi,  15-17).  Notice  here,  first,  they  are  baptized  witli 
water;  second,  they  are  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit; 
third,  the  mode  of  the  all-essential  baptism  is  given.  It 
was  '* poured  on  them."  It  "fell  on  them."  So  in  the 
Bible  it  is  represented  as  "shed  forth,"  "poured  upon." 
It  is  often  called  ''anointing/^  " unction." f  AH  believers 
received  this  sealing  power  of  the  Spirit.  J  By  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  Christ  baptizes 
us  with  the  Spirit.  Cornelius's  house  was  thus  baptized ; 
that  is,  "it  was  poured  out  on  them."  It  "fell  on 
them  " — ^they  were  baptized  with  it. 

In  Acts  i,  5,  it  was  poured  on  them.  Some  say  it  filled 
the  house,  and  they  were  immersed  in  it.  To  immerse  hi 
an  element  is  to  put  the  object  into  it.     Here  it  is  claimed 

^'Luke  iii,  16;  Acts  i,  5;  xi,  17.  In  these  cases  it  is  simply  vSari, 
hudati.     Peter  tells  us  "  the  Lord  said  "  the  same  (Acts  xi,  15,  16). 

tEzek.  xviii,  31;  xxxvii,  5-14;  Jer.  xxxi,  33;  Is.  xxxii,  15;  xliv,  3; 
Prov.  i,  23;  Joel  ii,  28;  Acts  i,  1-5,  33;  ii,  28;  x,  44,  45;  xi,  14-17; 
1  Peter  i,  12  ;  1  John  ii,  20,  27,  28 ;  v,  6,  7,  10 ;  2  Cor.  i,  21 ;  Acts  iv,  27 ; 
Titus  iii,  5,  6. 

t  Titus  iii,  5-7;    Eph.  i«  12-14;    1   Cor.  xii,  3-13;    and   the  ahove 

tC\t':. 


24  BAPTISM. 

the  Spirit  filled  the  house  where  they  were  assembled.  In 
that  case  it  would  overwhelm  them,  but  not  dip  them, 
surely,  or  immerse  them.  But  it  is  untrue  that  it  filled 
the  house.  It  does  not  say  so.  Tlie  sound  as  of  a  rush- 
ing mighty  wind  filled  the  house.  So  states  the  text.  It 
(the  sound)  filled  it.  But  in  all  the  other  places  there 
is  no  such  fact.  And  in  all  cases  the  Spirit  was  poured  on 
them.  The  Spirit  thus  acting  baptized  thetn,  Christ  being 
the  baptizer.  Isaiah  xliv,  3;  Zechariah  xii,  10;  Joel  ii, 
•28,  of  the  Old  Testament;  Peter,  Acts  xi,  15,  16;  Luke, 
in  Acts  X,  44,  45;  Paul,  Titus  iii,  5,  6,  tell  us  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  on  the  people — six  witnesses.  Matthew 
iii,  11:  Mark  i,  8;  Luke  iii,  16;  John  i,  33;  Acts  i,  5; 
Peter,  Acts  xi,  15,  16;  John  the  Baptizer,  in  Matthew  iii, 
11,  etc.;  Christ,  Acts  xi,  16;  Paul,  1  Corinthians  xii,  13 — 
eight  New  Testament  writers  and  speakers  call  this  pour- 
ing on  of  the  Spirit  on  the  people,  baptizing  them  with  the 
Spirit.  Is.  xliv,  3:  "I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is 
thirsty^'  symbolizes  the  words  in  the  same  verse,  ^^I  will 
pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed."  It  was  the  "  I  baptize 
you  with  water,  with  the  Spirit,"  of  the  above  texts. 

But  it  is  answered.  Is  the  Spirit  literally  poured  upon 
men?  Is  it  not  present  every  where,  filling  all  space, 
ubiquitous,  above,  around  us?  How  then  can  it  be  poured 
on  us  when  it  is  present  every  where?     To  tliis  we  reply: 

1.  Yes;  but  if  it  holds  good  as  an  argument,  the  possi- 
bility of  the  Spirit  being  literally  poured  on  us,  shed  upon 
us,  etc.,  or  against  the  propriety  of  such  language,  how 
much  more  is  it  against  the  idea  or  possibility  of  being 
dipped  in  the  Spirit  ?  How  can  people  be  immersed  in  the 
Spirit  from  this  standpoint?  To  be  dipped  implies  not 
merely  putting  in,  partially  or  wholly,  but  being  with- 
drawn.    How  could  thev  be  immersed  into  that  in  which 


BAPTISM    WITH    WATEK.  2o 

already  they  were  enveloped?  Suppose  people  were  already 
entirely  under  the  water  of  a  lake  or  river,  liow  could  they 
be  dipped  into  it,  when  already  enveloped  in  the  water? 
So  this  dodge  leaves  the  objector  in  a  worse  predicament 
than  ever.  | 

2.  Hence  the  Spirit^s  influence  or  operation  on  man's 
moral  nature  is  repeatedly  called  in  the  New  Testament 
baptizing  with  the  Spirit.     It  is  called  baptism. 

3.  The  Bible  throughout  designates  this  act  or  work 
of  the  Spirit,  baptizing  them  with  the  Spirit,  pouring  the 
Spirit  on  them,  as  just  seen.* 

4.  Then,  why  do  the  ])rophets  and  apostles  represent 
the  S})irit  as  ^^ poured"  on  the  people  in  the  baptismal  act? 
A  good  reason  must  underlie  such  language.  First,  there 
was  a  grand  reason  for  the  action  of  the  Spirit  being  com- 
pared to  the  wind  (John  iii,  8) ;  second,  there  was  a  reason 
for  representing  us  as  begotten  by  the  Spirit — '^  born  of  the 
Spirit" — we  receive  character,  impress  from  it;  third,  why 
is  it  often  represented  as  "an  unction,"  '^an  anointing"? 
Because  the  wind  literally  does  act  as  named,  known  by  its 
effectfi,  so  is  every  one  born  of  the  Spirit.  Because  those 
"anointed"  have  the  symbolizing  oil  literally  poured  on 
them,  therefore  we  are  anointed  by  the  Spirit.  Because 
seals  of  state  were  literally  placed  upon  documents  to  give 
impress,  character,  passport,  acceptance,  we  are  "'sealed 
with  the  Spirit  of  promise  "  (Eph.  i,  13 ;  2  Cor.  i,  22).  Be- 
cause in  outward  baptism  the  water  was  literally  poured 
on  those  baptized,  they  are  said  to  be  baptized  with  the 

"•••  To  those  who,  like  Stokius  in  his  lexicon,  assert  that  hoptidzo  is 
used  to  express  the  abundance  of  the  Spirit,  or  its  gifts,  though  he  tells 
us  it  was  by  pouring,  we  reply  that  ;t;«cj,  chco,  to  pour,  is  often  so  used 
in  the  classics  and  the  Bible,  and  with  certain  prepositions  it  represents 
floods  even,  abundance,  bounteousness.  But  where  does  dip  or  immerse 
repre--ent  the?;?  idea,-  ? 


26  BAPTISM. 

Spirit,  it  is  said  to  be  poured  on  them.  Tlie  water  was 
a  symbol,  as  was  the  oil  a  symbol  from  other  standpoints. 
Hence  the  objection  brings  out  the  clearest  argument  pos- 
sible. 

No  intelligent  person  is  willing  to  rest  a  good  cause  on 
mere  allusions,  much  less  upon  one  or  two  highly-wrought 
metaphors  that  allude  to  baptism,  whether  it  be  by  that 
of  the  Spirit  or  of  water.  Baptizing,  eis,  epi  (Mark  i,  9; 
Matt,  iii,  13),  e«,  at  Jordan,  in  ^non,  because  there  was 
much  water  there;  and  Acts  viii,  38;  Romans  vi,  4,  give 
us  no  historic  basis,  7io  fact,  as  to  the  action  or  mode. 
A.  Campbell  states  it  only  as  an  "inference^'  as  to  the 
eunuch.  He  can  't  say  he  was  immersed.  Dr.  Wilkes 
puts  it  at  best  only  as  a  "hypothesis.'^  ^  We  now  propose 
to  give  a  historic  basis  on  this  question,  and  facts  that 
will  clearly  account  also  for  the  going  to  Jordan,  JEnon, 
etc.  Surely  the  ordinary  reasons  assigned  arc  absurd. 
Dr.  Barclay  (immersionist)  in  City  of  the  Great  King, 
Elder  Wilkes,  and  Baptists  as  well,  tell  us  of  four  acres 
of  pools  of  water  in  Jerusalem  from  forty-five  to  forty- 
seven  feet  deep  in  the  centers,  showing  plenty  of  water  iu 
which  to  immerse,  in  which  the  three  thousand  of  Pente- 
cost (Acts  ii,  41)  could  have  been  plunged.  Well,  then, 
why  did  j^eople  go  in  great  numbers  from  thence  to  Jor- 
dan for  baptism  if  quantity  or  sufficiency  of  water  for  the 
mode  of  baptism  was  the  motive?  Again,  why  leave  the 
Jordan  and  go  to  ^non  if  that  was  the  question?  Again 
as  it  is  only  in  connection  with  Johii\'i  baptism  we  ever 
read  of  Jordan  and  ^non  as  to  baptism,  if  the  people 
had  to  go  to  Jordan  and  ^non  for  a  sufficiency  of  w^ater 
for  the  baptismal  act,  how  came  no  one  to  go  to  either 
place  in  all  the  sixty-seven  years  of  baptisms  under  the 
■•'■  Louisville  Dehate,  page  582. 


BAPTISM    WITH    WATER.  27 

apostles?  John's  lasted  only  some  six  months.  If  John's 
subjects  did  go  thence  for  the  purpose  of  getting  sufficient 
water  for  the  mode,  it  is  the  strongest  possible  proof 
against  immersion  in  the  apostolic  age. 

1.  John  baptized  at  first  ^M^eyond  Jordan/'  "in  Beth- 
any"* (John  i,  28;  x,  42),  where  Christ  afterward  dwelt 
for  a  time,  "into  the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized" 
(John  X,  40). 

2.  He  next  baptized  at  (epi)  the  Jordan  (Matt,  iii,  13). 
Luke  reads  "about  Jordan"  (Luke  iii,  3).  Mark  has  it 
eis,  at,  in,  or  into  (Mark  i,  9);  en,  "at,"  "in,"  ^'%," 
"about"  (verse  5). 

That  Mark's  en  does  not  indicate  mode,  but  merely  the 
place,  location,  in  which  the  baptism  Avas  performed,  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  where  the  action  of  the  baptism 
is  named  it  is  in  Mark  "  loitli  water  (Mark  i,  8),  not  in 
water.  And  the  correct  texts  of  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
etc.  have  no  en  in  Mark  i,  8,  in  the  Greek  either.  That 
it  does  not  indicate  mode  but  merely  place  is  further  evi- 
dent from  Matthew's  words,  "at  Jordan,"  Luke's,  "about 
Jordan."  The  Hebrews  stood  still  "in  the  midst  of 
Jordan"  (Josh,  iii,  17);  "stand  still  in  Jordan"  (Josh,  iii, 
8);  "into  Jordan"  (verse  11),  all  on  dry  land,  just  as  the 
people  "came  up  out  of  Jordan" — repeated  some  five 
times  (Josh,  iv,  16-21).  "The  Israelites  pitched  (en) 
by  a  fountain"  (1  Sam.  xxix,  1).  "Get  thee  hence,  and 
hide  thyself  (en)  the  brook  Cherith"  (1  Kings  xvii,  3). 
In  Ezekiel  i,  3;  iii,  15;  x,  15,  20,  22,  in  the  Hebrew  in  (be) 
and  at  (al)  the  river  interchange  over  and  again  for  the 
same  thing.     But  in  Joshua  the  en  (in)  Jordan  and  into 

*  In  James's  version  it  reads  Bethabara,  but  in  Baptist  Union  Bible, 
A,  Campbell's,  and  Anderson's  and  Wilson's  immersion  versions  it  reads 
Bethany,  as  well  as  in  all  ancient  MSS.  and  versions,  and  is  the  only 
correct  reading;. 


28  BAPTISM. 

Jordan  are  expressly  limited  and  defined  (Josh,  iii,  8)  by 
eply  at  or  by  the  Jordan  (Josh,  iii,  8).  Upi  is  there  used 
as  the  limitation  of  en  or  els.  So  the  en  and  eis  of  Mark 
i,  5,  9,  are  limited  and  defined  by  Matthew^s  epL  And 
some  manuscripts  of  Joshua  iii,  S,  expressly  use  eis  for  ejyi 
in  that  verse:  '^As  ye  come  els  (to)  the  water;  '^  others,  ^'As 
ye  come  epi  (to)  the  water."  * 

3.  Every  Jew  baptized  himself  from  once  to  two, 
three,  four  times  a  day  in  Christ's  day  (Mark  vii,  3,  4; 
Luke  xi,  38),  with  facts  detailed  in  the  laver  argument. 
Did  they  all  go  to  Jordan  to  find  water  enough  for  their 
baptism?  We  see  in  the  laver  argument  that  all  Jews 
baptized  daily,  and  baptized  their  furniture  and  their  beds 
every  day.  When  we  are  told  of  big  cisterns  twenty-two 
feet  deep,  sixteen  or  seventeen  feet  wide,  that  families  had 
against  the  three,  four,  or  five  months  of  drouth  every  sea- 
son, and  that  they  could  immerse  in  them,  we  again  refer 
you  to  Leviticus  xi,  30-36;  Numbers  xix,  22;  xxxi,  23; 
Leviticus  xv  entire,  etc.  as  an  utter  refutation  of  that. 
And  in  the  face  of  those  facts  would  a  man,  his  wife,  their 
six,  eight,  ten  children,  and  often  six,  eight,  ten  servants, 
male  and  female,  daily  immerse  in  the  cistern  and  daily 
immerse  their  beds  in  it,  then  use  the  water  for  drinking, 
for  cooking,  and  the  like.  Immersion  theories  require 
this. 

*  Origen's  Hexapla,  in  loc.  So  likewise  epi  and  en  interchange,  e.  g. 
Judith  xii,  7,  epi,  at  the  fountain ;  some  MSS.  en,  at,  etc. 


BAPTISM    OF    PAUL    (sAUL).  29 


CHAPTER  V. 

Baptisi»[  of  Paul  (Saul). 

In  Acts  ix,  18,  we  read  in  the  Greek  Testament,  "And 
standing  up  [he]  was  baptized/'  The  facts  show  that 
while  Saul  was  praying  he  kneeled  on  his  face,  a  habit 
very  common  then.  Christ  in  the  garden  "  fell  on  his 
face,  and  prayed'^  (Matt,  xxvi,  39),  where  Luke  says  he 
kneeled  (xxii,  41).  Cornelius  fell  at  the  apostle's  feet  to 
pray  (Acts  x,  25).  The  jailer  "fell  down  before"  the 
apostle  and  Silas  (Acts  xvi,  29).  1  Corinthians  xiv,  25, 
shows  it  was  the  common  habit.  Saul  had  been  praying 
in  the  deepest  humility  of  spirit  (Acts  ix,  11).  It  was 
while  in  this  attitude  that  his  sins  were  washed  away, 
in  the  act  of  prayer,  and  the  Spirit  received  (Acts  ix, 
16-18).  Then  he  arose,  stood  up,  and  was  baptized.  So 
the  other  report  of  it  (Acts  xxii,  16):  Arise,  "standing 
up,  be  baptized,  having  washed  away  thy  sins  in  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord/'  All  ancient  English  versions — 
six  in  number — before  James's  read,  "in  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  *  Peter  said  to  Cornelius  (Acts  x, 
26),  "  Stand  up"  (anasthsethi),  and  he  helped  him  to  stand 
up. 

Matt,  iii,  13:  "Jesus  cometh  [epi,  ^tt)]  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  be  baptized."     It  was  [ept]  at  the  Jordan,  not 

-••  Kal  avaaraq  k^aTzricdr]^  kai  anastas  ehaptisihce.  The  Greek  implies 
that  while  or  in  the  act  of  standing  he  was  baptized.  There  is  no  "  and  " 
{kai)  in  the  Greek.  Such  a  form  of  words  shows  he  stood  for  the 
purpose  of  being  baptized. 


30  BAPTISM. 

in  or  into  it.  Mark  i,  9,  has  for  this  eis,  at,  into,  by,  in. 
Of  eis  Liddell  &  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon  says  its  ^'radical 
signification  is  direction  toward,  motion  to,  on,  or  hito.'^  So 
say  Kiihner,  Buttman,  Passow,  E,ost,  Palm,  Pape — all 
modern  critics.  It  is  toward,  mere  motion  toward,  to,  on, 
or  into.  Hence  the  primary  meaning  is  not  into;  that  is  a 
derived  meaning  resulting  from  the  motion  toward,  etc. 
Joshua  iii,  8,  epi,  at,  to  interchanges  with  eis,  at,  to.  As  eis 
means  to,  at  primarily,  and  epi  never  implies  into,  but 
limits  the  object  to  mere  location  on,  at,  by,  to,  it  settles 
this  question.  Though  we  could  cite  vast  numbers  of 
texts  where  eis  means  to,  at,  by — e.  g.  1  Kings  xviii,  19, 
"a^  CarmeP' — yet  let  us  take  a  few  that  li7nit  it  to  Jor- 
dan, as  this  is  a  question  about  Jordan  in  Mark  i,  9.  1 
Kings  ii,  6:  "Meet  me  \eis]  at  Jordan. '^  2  Kings  ii,  6: 
"For  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  [eis~\  to  Jordan. '^  2  Kings  v, 
4 :  "  The  sons  of  the  propliets  came  {eis)  to  the  Jordan  and 
cut  wood.''     Add  a  few  more. 

Is.  xxxvi,  2:  "The  king  sent  Rabshakeh  from  La- 
chish  [eis']  to  Jerusalem" — not  into  it,  for  the  city  was  not 
yet  captured,  and  he  remained  outside  by  the  potter's  field, 
and  they  came  out  and  met  him  there  (verse  3).  2  Kings 
ii,  21:  "AVent  forth  [eis]  unto  the  spring  of  ^vaters." 
Josh,  iii,  16 :  Eis,  "toward  the  sea."  Luke  v,  4:  "  Launch 
out  [eis]  into  the  sea."  Note  it  was  a  ship  or  boat  already 
in  the  sea.  In  Mark  i,  9,  eis  lordanaen  in  the  Peshito 
is  bh^  Yurdhnon,  at  Jordan — not  [le]  into.  Acts  viii,  38, 
it  is  le,  into,  to,  etc.  Rom.  vi,  4:  "Into  death"  is  [le], 
into.  Wesley's  version,  in  his  notes,  renders  Mark  i,  9, 
"at  Jordan,"  just  as  he  does  Matthew  iii,  13,  "at  Jor- 
dan." H.  T.  Anderson,  immersionist,  reads,  "to  Jordan" 
(Matt,  iii,  13). 

In  the  above  we  have  repeatedly  the  very  tcords  of  Mark 


BAPTISM    OF    PAUL    (sAUL).  31 

i,  9,  which  immersionists  render  "into  the  Jordan ;^^  vet  in 
not  one  of  these  cases  does  it  allow  of  this  meaning.  As 
all  the  places  where  eis  occurs  with  Jordan  compel  us  to 
reject  this  rendering  and  accept  at  as  the  force  of  the  word, 
and  Matthew^s  epi,"Q,t,^^  settles  it,  we  do  not  propose  to 
surrender  such  facts  to  mere  bravado. 

Again,  the  rendering  of  H.  T.  Anderson,  immersion- 
ist  most  rigid;  of  the  Bible  of  the  Baptist  Union ;  and  of 
T.  J.  Conant,  all  of  whom  render  Mark  i,  10,  and  Matthew 
iii,  6,  "\\Q  came  up  immediately //-om  [apo]  the  water," 
confirms  this.  Apo  can  not  apply  to  emergence.  Hence 
Christ  was  not  in  nor  under  the  water.  The  want  of  ac- 
curate knowledge  of  the  Greek  in  James's  day — 1607  to 
1610 — led  them  to  suppose  that  apo  meant  at  times  out 
of,  and  the  old  lexicographers  of  the  previous  century  so 
rendered  it.  No  scholar  will  pretend  now  that  it  ever 
means  "out  ofP  Winer,  Kiihner,  Jelf,  Robinson,  Passow, 
Pape,  Liddell  &  Scott,  etc.  have  utterly  dissipated  that 
delusion.  Hence  Dr.  T.  J.  Conant,  the  prince  of  Baptist 
scholars  in  Europe  or  America ,  though  so  intolerant  of 
afPusion  for  baptism,  says,  "  It  has  been  erroneously  sup- 
posed that  the  same  thing  is  stated  in  Matthew  iii,  16,  and 
Mark  i,  10.  But  the  prep[osition]  ^from'  [apo)  is  there 
used  [so  does  Luke  iv,  1,  rendered  ^from'  even  in  James's 
version] ;  and  the  proj^er  rendering  is  '  up  from  the 
water/ ''^  Winer,  the  great  German  critic  on  idioms, 
shows  that  apo  can  not  be  applied  to  a  case  where  a  sub- 
ject was  literally  hi  or  under  the  water,  but  only  to  cases 
where  he  was  near  to,  by,  at,  "not  i7i/'  says  he.f     Because 

*■  Baptizedn,  page  98  note. 

t  "  'AvE^r/  OTTO,  up  from  the  Avater"  (Idioms,  298).  If  baptidzo  mean?, 
as  they  say  it  does,  to  clip — as  dip  in  all  such  uses  implies  withdrawal — 
how  could  he  come  up  out  of  the  water  in  their  sense,  if  dip  had  already 
withdrawn  him  ? 


32  BAPTISM. 

eh  occurs  in  several  of  the  best  ancient  manuscripts,  Dr. 
Wilkes  insists  it  is  the  correct  reading  of  Mark  i,  10,  as 
in  Tischenclorf.  1.  By  the  same  and  by  far  more  authority 
he  must  reject  Mark  xvi,  15, 16.  2.  Scholz,  Winer,  Bengel, 
Lange,  Theile,  Olshausen,  Mill,  Griesbach,  Conant,  Ander- 
son, Baptist  Union  Bible,  all  retain  apo  there.  *  3.  Even 
if  it  were  eh  in  Mark  i,  10,  it  often  means  ^-from,"  while 
apo  never  means  ^^out  of.^^  And  all  copies  read  apo,  from, 
in  Matthew  iii,  16,  and  Luke  iv,  1.  Hence  Christ  never 
was  literally  in  Jordan — i.  e.  the  water — but  only  epi,  at 
Jordan,  when  baptized. 

But  taking  the  incorrect  renderings  of  James,  Luke  and 
John  report  the  same  matter  thus:  Luke  iv,  1:  ^'And  Je- 
sus being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  returned  from  Jordan.'' 
That  which  by  Matthew  and  Mark  is  reported  ^'from 
the  water"  is  here  "returned  from  Jordan,''  showing  that 
mere  departure  from  the  Jordan  is  meant  by  all  the  writers. 
John  thus  records  it  (iv,  3) :  "He  left  Judea  and  departed 
again  into  Galilee."  Thus  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the 
writers  merely  meant  to  tell  of  his  prompt  return,  of  his 
speedy  temptation,  and  of  his  departure  into  Galilee; 
nothing  indicating  emergence,  but  dejoartur'e. 


PHILIP   AND   THE    EUNUCH. 

Acts  viii,  38:  The  supposed  confession  of  the  eunuch  is 

so  evident  a  forgery  that  A.  Campbell,  Anderson,  Wilson 

(formerly  of  their  church),  McGarvey,  all  threw  it  out  of 

the  text  most  justly.     It  is  not  in  any  ancient  copy  (MS.) 

of  the  Bible.     Hence  all  correct  Greek  texts  now  reject  it 

without  hesitation. 

*  Conant,  Anderson,  Bible  Union,  Baptist,  professedly  corrected  the 
Greek  text,  contrary  to  Wilkes's  statement. 


BAPTISM    OF    PAUL    (sAUL).  33 

Next  to  Romans  vi,  4,  immersionists  have  made  more 
capital  out  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  than  out  of  all 
else  in  Jameses  version,  especially  as  the  ignorant  masses 
go  beyond  all  records  and  jumble  up  the  "much  water '^ 
of  ^non  with  this  case,  then  add  both  places  to  Christ's 
baptism,  quoting  it  as  if  he  went  straightway  into  the 
water ! ! 

1.  Does  the  fact  that  "they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,^'  imply  immersion? 
Or  that  "they  came  up  out  of  the  water?''  These  are  the 
words  relied  on.  Do  "into"  and  "out  of"  imply  immer- 
sion? Yes  or  no?  If  you  say  No,  you  give  up  the  argu- 
ment. If  you  say  Yes,  it  destroys  the  immersion  theory; 
for  if  "into"  and  "out  of"  here  imply  immersion  or  dip- 
ping, baptidzo  does  not;  for  after  they  went  (m)*  "into 
the  water,"  it  reads,  "and  he  baptized  him;"  i.  e.  it  was 
after  he  had  been  "baptized"  that  "they  came  up  out 
of  the  water." 

2.  If  "into  the  water"  and  "out  of  the  water"  imply 
immersion,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  were  immersed. 
"Both  Philip  and  the  eunuch"  "went  down  into  the 
water,"  both  came  up  out  of  it.  If  it  is  answered,  Philip 
had  to  go  down  into  the  water  to  immerse  him,  we  reply, 
first,  that  destroys  the  "out  of"  and  "into"  argument; 
second,  it  assumes  the  very  point  to  be  proved,  that  he 
did  immerse  him.     It  begs  the  question  altogether. 

3.  But  it  is  asked  why  did  they  go  down  into  the  water 
if  not  for  immersion  ?  If  sprinkling  was  the  mode  why 
did  not  Philip  run  down  into  the  water  and  secure  a  cup 
or  pitcher  full  of  water?  First,  decency  and  good  will 
would  suggest  that  both  go  while  one  had  to  go ;  second, 

*  I  follow  James's  rendering  here,  of  course.     E<r  means,  primarily, 
toward ;  then  to,  unto ;  then  at,  and  into. 
3 


34  baptis:m. 

the  laws  of  Moses  show  why.  Wherever  possible  the  law 
required  running,  i.  e.  living  water,  to  be  used  for  baptism, 
ritualistic  washing.  As  yet  Christianity  had  not  gone  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  Moseses  law  was  strictly  kept  (see  Acts 
XV,  1-20;  xxi  entire;  and  Gal.  iii)  long  after  this.  In  the 
facts  of  tlie  laver  argument  all  these  matters  are  fully 
presented,  which  see.  It  is  also  argued  that  the  nobleman 
had  vessels  for  his  use  in  the  chariot,  and  water  could 
have  been  brought  in  the  vessel  from  the  place  of  water. 
But  if  he  had  such,  by  their  use  by  one  unclean,  all  such 
vessels  were  unclean,  and  water  for  any  use  could  not  be 
used  from  such,  as  Leviticus  xi,  30-36;  Numbers  xix,  22; 
xxxi,  23,  sufficiently  tell  us. 

4.  Bloomfield,  Baumgarten,  and  other  raost  eminent 
scholars  believe  Philip  poured  the  water  on  him  in  the 
baptism. 

5.  Finally,  we  insist  if  haptidzo  means  to  dip,  and  we 
know  dip  means  that  we  put  in  and  withdraw  the  object 
dipped ;  hence  if  he  was  dipped,  he  was  withdrawn  from 
the  water  by  Philip,  which  leaves  it  impossible  that  he 
should  go  out  of  the  water  literally,  being  already  with- 
drawn from  it. 

We  deem  it  time  and  space  lost  to  discuss,  as  puerile 
writers  do,  about  whether  there  was  sufficiency  of  water 
between  Gaza  and  Jerusalem  in  which  to  immerse  the 
eunuch,  or  to  try  to  prove,  as  immersionists  do,  that  the 
jailer  was  led  off  in  search  of  water.  The  plain  facts  all 
indicate  affusion  as  the  mode,  as  to  the  three  thousand,  the 
five  thousand,  Lydia,  Cornelius,  Paul,  and  the  jailer.  The 
fact  that  in  no  instance  did  the  parties  in  the  whole  history 
of  Christian  baptism,  during  sixty-seven  years,  go  in  search 
of  water,  so  far  as  the  record  goes  or  hints — and  we  pro- 
pose  not  to  leave  the  record  —  is  all  so  much  evidence 


BAPTISM    OF    PAUL    (sAUL).  35 

against  immersion.  We  are  too  bountifully  supplied  with 
proofs  of  affusion  to  weaken  our  crushing  facts  by  forc- 
ing into  service  matters  that  of  themselves  afford  no  help 
to  either  side.  The  language  in  Acts  x,  46,  47,  "  Can 
any  man  forbid  water,"  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  idea 
of  it  being  brought  for  the  baptismal  use  as  against 
immersion. 

We,  however,  can  not  see  how  the  theory  of  immersion 
can  apply  to  the  three  thousand  and  five  thousand  on  Pente- 
cost and  the  next  day,  especially  in  view  of  this.  All  were 
Jews.  Purification  or  cleansing,  if  actual,  defiled  the  water, 
and  only  07ie  could  be  cleansed,  washed,  or  baptized  in  or 
with  the  same  water.  If  ceremonial,  then  as  soon  as  one  was 
ceremonially  washed,  or  baptized  symbolically,  the  water 
became  ceremonially  unclean.     "Whatsoever  the  ux- 

CLEAN  TOUCHETH  SHALL  BE  UNCLEAN.'^       Certainly  nOU- 

believing  Jews,  to  say  the  least,  would  regard  all  those 
who  received  Christ  as  unclean.  Would  they  have  allowed 
the  Jews  converted  to  Christ  to  thus  ceremonially  pollute 
all  their  public  waters  ?  We  can  not  suppose  so  for  a  mo- 
ment. See  this  further  under  the  head  of  the  lave?',  Chap- 
ter VI.  If  confession  of  each  was  taken  as  Baptists  and 
Disciples  now  do,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  so  many  could 
be  examined,  prepared,  and  immersed  after  the  apostles 
closed  their  preaching  (Acts  ii,  41). 

But  we  think  the  writers  on  both  sides  of  this  question 
liave  committed  grave  errors  also  in  aiming  to  settle  so 
great  a  controversy,  almost  if  not  altogether,  by  the  con- 
structions they  put  upon  (so  far  as  the  English  version 
goes,  and  largely  as  to  the  original) : 

1.  The  merest  incidental  "  allusions  ''  to  baptism.  Such 
are  Mark  i,  9  (etV,  eis),  "in,"  '^' at  Jordan;"  Mark  i,  5, 
€71,  "in  the  Jordan,"  at,  in,  or  by  ^non  near  Salim,  in 


36  BAPTISM. 

or  at  Bethany,  into  the  water  (Acts  viii,  38) ;  or,  on  the 
other  side,  the  three  thousand  on  Pentecost  (Acts  ii^  41) ; 
the  five  thousand  (Acts  v,  14) ;  Lydia,  the  jailer  (Acts 
xvi,  16,  33);  Cornelius  (Acts  x,  43-47);  Paul  (Acts  ix, 
18,  19).  These  latter  are  just  as  decisive  as  the  former, 
if  not  much  more  so;  yet  they  are  not  a  historic  basis; 
are  only  incidental  allusions,  and  all  briefly  given. 

2.  IVIetaphorical  as  v^^ell  as  incidental  allusions,  where 
almost  every  word  is  highly  metaphorical ;  such  texts 
must  always  be  more  or  less  uncertain  as  to  their  exact 
meaning  when  interpreted,  at  so  remote  a  period,  by  a 
people  not  versed  in  the  metaphors  of  those  times.  Take 
such  examples  as  Romans  vi,  3,  5 ;  Colossians  ii,  12;  John 
iii,  5.  Scholars  have  always,  since  the  fourth  century,  been 
])erplexed  as  to  the  real  meaning  and  intent  of  these  texts. 
We  say  the  fourth  century,  for  till  then  Romans  vi,  4,  was 
never  referred  to  water  baptism,  but  to  spiritual,  while 
mostly  John  iii,  5,  was  held  to  be  spiritual  water,  just  as 
Ofigen,  Calvin,  Beza,  Zwingle,  etc.  held. 

3.  Those  texts  that  are  only  allusions  to  the  baptismal 
Uise  of  water  and  are  not  actual  baptism,  and  expressed  in 
highly  metaphorical  style,  based  upon  the  ancient  use  of 
water.  Such  are  Ephesians  v,  26;  Titus  iii,  5;  Isaiah  iv, 
4;  Isaiah  i,  16;  Psalm  li,  2-9;  Ezekiel  xvi,  9;  Hebrews 
X,  22,  and  are  far  more  pertinent,  since  they  are  general 
allusions  to  baptism  and  especially  indicate  its  proper  sym- 
bolism, viz.  cleansing. 

What  we  demand  is  a  historic  basiSy  a  record  of  facts 
in  historic  order,  then  the  allusions  and  metaphors  are  to 
be  explained  hy  well-ascertained  facts,  not  the  fact  assumed, 
then  souglit  to  be  proved  by  mixed,  uncertain,  and  meta- 
phorical allusions;  many  of  which  are  in  themselves  wholly 
uncertain. 


BAPTISM    OF   PAUL    (sAUL.)  37 

METAPHORICAL   INCIDENTAL    ALLUSIONS    TO   WATER 
AND   SPIRIT    BAPTISM. 

But  as  mere  incidental  allusions  to  baptism  are  exclu- 
sively relied  on  as  to  Bible  arguments  by  our  opponents, 
let  us  examine  a  few  of  the  acknowledged  allusions  to 
WATER  baptism,  on  which  all  parties  are  agreed  that  the 
allusion  is  to  ritualistic  baptism. 

Eph.  V,  25,  26:  "As  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  with  the  washing  (cleansing)  of  water  by  the  word.^' 

1.  All  immersionists  refer  this  to  baptism.  A.  Camp- 
bell, Wilkes,  Dr.  Brents,  and  all  their  writers  always  cite 
it  thus  and  quote  Wesley,  Clarke,  Doddridge,  etc.  to  back 
their  statements. 

2.  It  confirms  affusion.  What  is  done  to  effect  the 
(loutron)  washing  here?  Two  words  are  used — (1)  sanc- 
tify, (2)  cleanse.  (1)  Sanctify.  How  did  they  ritualistic- 
ally  sanctify  the  church  or  people?  Hebrew^s  ix,  13,  19, 
with  Numbers  xix,  13,  18,  tell  us  it  is  done  by  sprink- 
ling the  water.  Josephus  tells  us  Moses  "  sprinkled 
Aaron  and  his  sons  "  for  this  purpose.  See  full  quotations 
under  the  argument  on  the  laver.  (2)  Cleanse.  How  did 
they  cleanse  them?  Numbers  viii,  7:  "And  thus  shalt 
thou  do  unto  them,  to  cleanse  them:  Sprinkle  water  of 
purifying  upon  them.^'     Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25,  refers  to  this 

f  cleansing,  and,  like  Paul,  names  only  the  sprinkling  of 
water  as  affecting  it:  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean^^ — cleansed.  Here  we 
have  Paul,  Moses,  and  Ezekiel  giving  us  the  mode  of  this 
cleansing  and  sanctifying;  it  is  by  sprinkling  clean  or  pure 
water  upon  the  persons. 

Hebews  x,  22,  they  all  say  refers  to  "Christian  bap^ 


38  BAPTISM. 

tism/^  Dr.  Graves  gives  it  special  prominence  (Debate^  p. 
186)  as  ^^  Christian  baptism/'  But  the  above  facts,  as  Avell 
as  the  laver,  show  the  washing  was  by  aifusion  of  clean  or 
pure  water  on  tlie  parties.  Where  it  says  body — over  and 
again  the  Bible  says  body  where  only  the  face,  the  head, 
etc.,  or  a  part  is  designated  (John  xiii,  9,  compared  with 
verse  10,  ^^  he  that  is  washed ;''  verse  8,  ^' if  I  wash  thee 
not;''  Matt,  xxvi,  7,  ^^ poured  it  on  his  head;^^  verse  12, 
"on  my  body;'^  verse  10,  "upon  me;"  Num.  viii,  7, 
"shave  all  their  flesh,"  body;  Titus  iii,  5,  6) — they  all 
say  alludes  to  or  is  baptism,  the  washing.  Clearly  enough 
it  is  an  allusion  to  the  baptismal  use  of  water,  just  as 
Isaiah  i,  16;  Ezekiel  xvi,  9;  Psalm  li,  1,  2,  7;  Isaiah  iv, 
4,  are — "wash  me;"  "I  have  washed  thee  with  water," 
etc.;  but  "the  washing  of  regeneration"  is  that  "which 
he  shed  (poured  oid)  upon  us  abundantly" — a  metaphor- 
ical use  of  words  based  on  the  actual  pouring  of  water 
on  the  baptized  subjects,  symbolizing  the  Spirit  (Isaiah 
xliv,  3).     Hence, 

1.  Jti  all  cases  in  the  Bible  luherc  the  mode  q/*  baptizing 
(Spirit)  is  given  it  is  pouring. 

2.  In  all  cases  where  the  mode  in  the  allusions  to  bap- 
tism is  given  it  is  affusion. 

3.  Wherever  such  words  as  cleanse,  sanctify  are  used, 
referring  to  water,  where  all  admit  it  points  to  baptism,  as 
Ephesians  v,  26,  it  is  affusion. 

4.  Immersion  as  an  ordinance  of  God's  church  is  a 
stranger  and  foreigner  to  the  whole  Bible. 


JOEDAX.  39 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Jordan. 

The  following  facts  will  appear  on  examining  the  evi- 
dence appended  thereto: 

1.  John  did  not  baptize  at  or  in  the  Jordan  at  tlie 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  but  went  "  away  again  beyond 
Jordan/^  to  Bethany. 

2.  Jordan  is  in  one  of  the  hottest  valleys  in  the  world, 
owing  to  its  great  depression  at  the  lower  part,  where  John 
baptized. 

3.  The  water  flows  from  regions  of  perpetual  snow,  in 
Hermon  and  Anti-Lebanon,  and  hence  the  water  is  very 
cold.  Most  of  the  way  it  is  shaded  by  abrupt  cliffs  and 
mountains  ^Hhousands  of  feet  high.'^  Tlie  waters  run 
dow^n  a  steep  of  three  thousand  feet,  hence  so  cool  from 
such  snow-regions  on  the  mountains. 

4.  Smith's  summary  of  the  facts  is:  ^^From  its  fountain 
heads  to  the  point 'where  it  is  lost  to  nature  (empties  in 
the  Dead  Sea)  it  rushes  down  one  continuotjs  inclined 
PLANE,  only  broken  by  a  series  of  rapids  or  precipitous 
falls.^^  This  is  immersion  authority.  Where  are  those 
eddies,  stagnant  places,  and  conveniences  we  hear  of? 

5.  John  left  such  an  unhealthy  valley  just  as  soon  as 
the  great  press  of  the  multitudes  would  allow — as  soon  as 
the  numbers  Avere  so  reduced  that  the  springs  or  *^  foun- 
tains'' at  ^non  near  Salim  would  accommodate  their 
wants. 


40  BAPTISM. 

6.  It  was  a  physical  impossibility  for  John  to  stand  in 
the  cold  water  so  long  as  the  immersion  theory  requires. 
Circulation  of  blood  would  have  ceased,  animal  heat  would 
have  been  promptly  overcome,  and  death  ensued  in  a  short 
time. 

7.  It  is  a  physical  impossibility  that  John  could  have 
immersed  so  many,  if  even  the  smallest  number  that  any 
reasonable  estimate  demands  be  granted,  in  so  swift  o, 
stream  as  was  and  is  the  Jordan.  When  a  steamboat  runs 
eight  miles  to  the  hour,  not  to  say  ten,  none  but  practiced 
persons  can  risk  throwing  a  bucket  into  the  water  and 
drawing  it  out  full  of  water.  But  here  the  stream  is  as 
swift  or  swifter  than  that,  and  persons  much  heavier  and 
larger  than  a  bucket  certainly;  and  while  a  man  could 
take  another  and  dip  him  by  being  very  careful,  it  is  not 
possible  that  one  man  could  immerse  great  numbers  in 
such  a  rapid  stream,  for  the  physical  labor,  the  certainty 
of  many  being  swept  away  from  his  hold  and  drowning, 
forbid.  In  a  few  minutes  the  limbs  would  become  so 
numb  in  such  a  cold  stream  as  to  make  the  action  of  the 
l(>wer  limbs  impossible. 

Let  us  now  see  the  proofs.  The  length  of  the  Jordan 
directly  to  the  Dead  Sea  is  sixty  miles.  By  its  windings 
it  is  two  hundred  miles.  Its  fall  is  over  three  thousand 
feet.  Dr.  Robinson,  Lieut.  Lynch,  and  Gage  all  show  its 
fall  to  be  over  three  thousand  feet.  As  Dr.  Wm.  Smith  is 
such  a  favorite  with  immersionists,  we  prefer  quoting  from 
him.  In  his  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  following  Lynch,  he 
says,  "The  depression  .  .  of  the  Dead  Sea  below  the  Med- 
iterranean is  1,316.7,  and  653.3  feet  below  Tiberias."  He 
then  gives  the  height  of  the  head  of  the  Jordan  above  the 
level  of  the  Mediterranean  1,700  feet.  The  mouth  is  1,317 
feet  below  it,  making  the  fall  of  the   Jordan  in  all  "a 


JORDAIS'.  41 

height  of  more  than  three  thousand  feet."    Divide  this  by 

two  hundred  miles,  and  we  have  the  average  fall  to  the 

mile  fifteen  feet.     The  actual  distance  is  sixty  miles,  which 

^  divided  into  three  thousand  gives  sixty  feet  to  the  mile. 

/Some  writers  put  the  distance  one   hundred  and  twenty 

If  miles,  twenty-five  feet  average.     The  upper  Jordan  has 

more  fall  than  the  lower,  where  John  baptized.     Robinson 

shows  its  fall  where  John  baptized  to  be  a  little  over  ten 

feet  to  the  mile.    The  fall  of  the  Mississippi  is  a  little  over 

jive  inches  to  the  mile,  yet  runs  from  three  to  five  miles  an 

hour,  much  as  it  wdnds. 

Kitto  says,  "  It  becomes  turbid ;  .  .  .  the  water  is  .  .  . 
always  coldJ^ 

Of  the  upper  Jordan  a  writer  in  Harper,  June  number, 
1870,  says,  "The  river  soon  became  a  roaring  torrenty  in 
which  no  boat  could  live."  Lynch  tells  us  they  often  had 
to  have  their  iron  boats  hauled  around  places,  because  so 
dangerous,  owing  to  the  current.  One  iron  boat  perished 
any  how.  The  above  writer  of  Harper  says  they  were 
assailed  by  a  mob,  but  "the  current  bore  the  canoe  along 
too  rapidly  for  them  to  keep  up  with  it,  but  they  cut 
across  the  bend/'  and  thus  overtook  it  for  a  moment. 

Rabbi  Joseph  Swarz,  for  sixteen  years  a  resident  in  the 
Holy  Land  (p.  43),  says,  "The  Jordan  .  .  .  is  so  rapid  a 
stream  that  even  the  best  swimmer  can  not  bathe  in  it 
without  endangering  his  life.  In  the  neighborhood  of 
Jericho  (there  is  where  John  baptized)  the  bathers  are 
compelled  to  tie  themselves  together  with  ropes,  to  prevent  their 
being  swept  away  by  the  rapidity  of  the  current.^ 

Rev.  D.  A.  Randall,  a  Baptist,  who  traveled  in  Pales- 
tine thus  writes:  "According  to  the  usual  custom  of  vis- 
itors, we  commenced  arrangements  for  a  bath,  when  our 
*■  A  Descriptive  Geography,  etc.  of  Palestine. 


42  BAPTISM. 

sheik  interposed,  declaring  the  current  too  swift,  and  that 
it  would  be  dangerous  to  enter  the  stream ;  that  a  man  had 
been  drowned  in  this  very  place  only  a  few  days  before. 
But  we  had  not  come  so  far  to  be  thwarted  in  our  plans 
by  trifles.  Being  a  good  swimmer,  I  measured  the  strength 
of  the  current  with  my  eye,  and  willing  to  risk  it,  plunged 
in,  and  my  companions  one  after  another  followed.  We 
found  the  current  quite  strong,  so  that  we  could  not  venture 
to  a  great  depth,  but /a?-  enough  to  accomplish  our  purpose 
of  a  plunge  bath.^^''^  W.  M.  Thompson,  missionary  in 
Syria  and  Palestine  twenty-five  years,  says  of  the  current, 
*^The  current  is  astonishingly  rapid.  ...  It  required  the 
most  expert  swimmer  to  cross  it,  and  one  less  skilled  must 
inevitably  be  carried  away,  as  we  had  melancholy  proof. 
Two  Christians  and  a  Turk,  who  ventured  too  far,  were 
drowned  without  the  possibility  of  rescue,  and  the  wonder 
is  that  more  did  not  share  the  same  fate.^f  This  is  at  the 
place  where  '^  our  blessed  Savior  was  baptized.''  Some  peo- 
ple "ducked  the  women;"  men  carried  their  little  children 
for  the  same  purpose,  "trembling  like  so  many  lambs;'' 
while  "  some  had  water  poured  on  their  heads  in  imitation 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Savior"  (ibid). 

Lieut.  Lynch,  w4io  traversed  the  entire  Jordan,  and 
whose  statements  none  questions — indeed,  he  seems  to  be 
an  immersionist — gives  us  an  account  of  his  descent  in 
iron  boats,  one  of  which  was  destroyed  by  the  violent  cur- 
rent dashing  it  to  pieces  against  obstacles:  "The  shores 
(seemed)  to  flit  by  us.  With  its  tumultuous  rush  the  river 
hurried  us  onward,  and  we  knew  not  what  the  next  mo- 
ment would  bring  forth — whether  it  would  dash  us  upon 

*The  Handwriting  of  God,  or  .  .  .  the  Holy  Land,  Part  II, 
pp.  233-4. 

t  The  Land  and  the  Book,  or  the  Holy  Land,  by  W.  M.  Thompson, 
D.D.,vol.  2,  pp.  4-15-6. 


JOEDAN.  43 

a  roch,  or  plunge  us  down  a  cataract^'  (p.  255).  Tins  was 
the  lower  Jordan,  where  John  baptized.  They  arrived  at 
El  Meshra,  where  John  baptized.  The  banks  are  ten  feet 
high,  save  at  the  ford,  and  the  water  is  suddenly  deep. 
Here  he  moralizes  how  'Hhe  Deity,  veiled  in  flesh,  de- 
scended the  bank,  .  .  .  and  the  impetuous  river,  in  grateful 
homage,  must  have  stayed  its  course,  and  gently  laved  the 
body  of  its  Lord"  (p.  256).  When  pilgrims  came  to 
bathe,  he  anchored  below  them,  "to  be  in  readiness  to  ren- 
der assistance  should  any  of  the  crowd  be  swept  down  by 
the  current,  and  in  danger  of  drowning,  .  .  .  accidents,  it 
is  said,  occurring  every  year'^  (pp.  261,  265). 

They  went  on  and  soon  passed  '^a  camel  in  the  river, 
washed  down  by  the  current  in  attempting  to  cross  the 
ford  last  night"  (p.  266).  In  five  minutes  they  "passed 
another  camel  in  the  river,  the  poor  beast  leaning  exhausted 
against  the  bank,  and  his  owner  seated  despondingly  above 
him.  We  could  not  help  him!^^  (p.  266).  Abridged  Work, 
p.  170. 

Immersion  is  absurd  in  the  light  of  these  facts.  The 
facts  show  that, 

1.  John  baptized  not  in  Jordan  at  first,  not  till  the 
news  of  his  work  excited  general  attention,  and  the 
great  "  multitudes  "  coming  necessitated  a  place  of  much 
water.  Every  ablution,  every  drink,  all  cooking  had 
to  be  with  clean  water.  Had  John  been  at  a  pond  or 
tank  of  water  with  even  enough  to  supply  all  with  drink- 
ing, cooking,  and  cleansing  waters,  as  well  as  for  animals, 
that  would  not  have  been  sufficient.  The  moment  unclean 
people  or  animals,  or  dead  bodies  of  any  kind,  should  have 
touched  the  water  it  would  be  unsuited  for  drinking,  for 
washing.  Hence  no  place  \vould  have  suited  for  John's 
ministry  when  such  multitudes  came  but  a  place,  first,  of 


44  BAPTISM. 

plenty  waiter ;  second,  running  \Y3iteY ;  for  a  fountain'^  or 
"  confluence  of  waters  '^  can  not  become  unclean.  This 
explains  Jolin^s  going  to  Jordan.  When  the  great  "  mul- 
titudes '^  ceased  to  come,  iEnon  furnished  by  its  springs 
enough  running  water  for  all  purposes  whatever.  Hence, 
2.  We  read  (John  x,  40-42),  "And  [Christ]  went  away 
again  beyond  (peran)  the  Jordan,  (eis)  into  the  jjlace  ivhere 
John  at  the  first  baptized^  and  there  remained. .  .  .  And  many 
believed  on  him  there.^^  Christ  went  into  the  place  ;  abode 
in  the  place  where  John  baptized ;  people  believed  on  him 
there.  As  he  baptized  at  ^non,  so  at,  or  in^  as  the  local- 
ity, the  Jordan,  and  first  "  beyond  Jordan.^^ 

Aside  from  all  else,  the  following  remarks  are  appro- 
priate : 

1.  In  no  case  is  a  word  said  in  the  New  Testament 
about  Jordan  or  iEnon  and  "much  water '^  as  the  place 
where  any  one  was  baptized  in  all  tlie  sixty -seven  or  sixty- 
eight  years  of  ajmstolic  history,  though  "multitudes" 
were  converted  (Acts  v,  14;  xvii,  4;  and  xviii,  7;  ix,  42; 
iv,  4). 

2.  In  no  case  of  baptism  under  tlie  apostolic  conver^s 
do  we  read  of  into  or  out  of  the  water.  Only  in  Acts 
viii,  38,  where  the  deacon  Philip  baptized  one  man,  is 
that  language  used,  they  being  on  a  journey.  See  the 
case. 

3.  Hence,  if  the  much  water  and  the  Jordan  have  to 
be  appealed  to  to  support  immersion;  if  in  John's  six 
months'  ministry  people  had  to  go  so  great  a  distance  to  be 
immersed,  inasmuch  as  in  sixty-seven  or  sixty-eight  years 
of  bajDtism  under  the  commission  that  never  occurs,  it  is 
strong  proof  that  the  Christian  dispensation  was  without 
immersion. 

1  Cor.  X,  2  :  "Our  fathers  were  all  under  the  cloud,  and 


JOEDAN.  45 

all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea/^  or  as  Luther  and 
some  versions  have  it,  and  as  is  equally  correct  with  the 
English,  "  with  the  cloud  and  with  the  sea." 

It  is  urged  by  immersionists  that  here  we  have  a  meta- 
phorical baptism;  that  the  sea  congealed  on  each  side  in 
high  walls ;  the  cloud  stood  over  making  a  pavilion,  and 
as  the  Hebrews  descended  they  were  all  shut  in,  envel- 
oped by  the  cloud  and  sea,  covered  over,  and,  as  it  were, 
immersed!  They  never  say  "dipped"  on  this  occasion. 
If  the  words  "  dip"  and  "  immerse  "  are  the  same  exactly, 
mean  the  same  thing  in  the  same  place,  wliy  not  read 
"  dipped"  in  this  case  ? 

1.  It  is  not  a  metaphorical  but  a  literal  baptism.  As 
outward,  literal  baptism  is  never  performed  without  contact 
with  some  liquid,  and  water  was  the  only  liquid  here,  it 
was  water  baptism. 

2.  They  were  not  immersed  in  water,  hence  it  was  not 
immersion. 

3.  But  it  is  urged  they  were  "enveloped,"^  etc.  That 
the  cloud  was  over  them  while  in  the  sea.  Paul  does  not 
say  so.  And  Moses  expressly  says  the  reverse  (Ex.  xiv, 
19-22).  The  cloud  rose  up,  passed  over  them,  stood  be- 
tween the  two  armies  all  that  night,  keeping  back  the 
Egyptians.  So  all  this  assumption  of  a  cloud  over  them 
while  in  the  sea  is  untrue.  Wesley  and  otliers  believe 
that  "  God  sent  a  plentiful  rain  by  which  he  confirmed  his 
heritage"  at  that  time  (Ps.  Ixviii,  9  ;  Ixxvii,  17;  Ixxviii, 
23),  and  thus  baptized  them.     Josephus,  a  contemporary 

-•■'Since  the  publication  of  the  debate  I  see  Dr.  Graves  (page  392) 
asks,  "  How  could  the  descent  of  Israel  into  the  Ked  Sea,  and  their  being 
BURIED  out  of  sight  hi  the  cloud?"  etc.  "What  daring  imposture  this! 
lie  was  careful  not  to  say  that  in  debate ;  but,  like  nearly  all  the  rest, 
slip  it  in  unseen. 


46  BAPTISM. 

of  Paul  and  learned  in  the  law  and  traditions  of  the  Jews, 
says  of  this  occasion  expressly,  '^  Showers  of  rain  also 
came  down  from  the  sky/^*  It  is  next  to  absolute  cer- 
tainty that  Paul  knew  of,  and  alludes  to  that  as  a  fact, 
and  denominates  it  baptism. 

This  much  we  know  absolutely : 

1.  There  was  no  immersion,  no  plunging  into  water, 
no  dipping  as  to  the  Hebrews. 

2.  They  were  all  baptized  with  water. 

3.  All  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  were  immersed,  not  one 
of  them  was  baptized.  The  Hebrew^,  Greek,  and  Latin 
read  (Ex.  xv,  1,  4,  5,  10),  they  were  ^^  immersed'^  {tabha 
in  Hebrew;  Jcatedusan  in  Greek;  suhmersi  sunt,  in  Latin, 
submersed).  The  English  reads  "sank,'^  which  Conant, 
A.  Campbell,  Wilkes,  Graves,  all  tell  us  is  the  English 
of  immerse. 

Eom.  vi,  3,  4;  Col.  ii,  11:  "  Buriechbi/  baptism  into 
death.^^  This  is  now  regarded  as  the  Gibralter  of  the 
immersion  theory.  We  never  hear  it  correctly  quoted  in 
popular  addresses  l)y  them.  Invariably  we  hear  them 
say  that  Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial.  It  is  a  burial.  We 
know  a  thing  or  person  is  not  buried  till  completely  cov- 
ered up.  Let  us  notice,  therefore,  in  the  outset,  the 
groundless  assumptions  made  on  this  text.  It  is  falsely 
assumed  that, 

1.  It  is  loater  baptism. 

2.  That  "  buried  by  baptism  into  death ''  is  a  literal 
burial  of  the  physical  body,  when  the  very  words  of  the 
text  expose  glaringly  its  absurdity. 

3.  That  burial  among  the  Romans  was  such  an  inter- 
ment, covering  over  in  the  earth,  as  we  in  modern  times 
practice  in  burial  in  Europe  and  America,  which  Robin- 

•^- Antiquities,  B.  11,  chap,  xvi,  p.  98. 


JORDAN.  4/ 

son,  their  own  historian^  tells  tliem  is  not  the  case  (page 
550).* 

4.  That  the  "  planted  '^  of  verse  5  implies  covering  up, 
as  if  it  were  as  we  plant  corn,  potatoes,  when  neither  of 
these  fruits  of  the  soil  was  discovered  till  in  America. 
The  ^^  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  ^^  is  in  the 
Greek  "  born  together/^  "  grafted  together."  Was  Christ's 
death  accomplished  under  icaterf  Is  there  any  likeness 
between  Christ's  death  on  the  cross  and  a  dip  under 
water  ? 

Even  the  word  bury  in  the  Scripture  does  not  necessa- 
rily imply  interment.  Jer.  xxii,  19  :  ''He  shall  be  buried 
with  the  burial  of  an  ass,  drawn  and  cast  forth  beyond 
the  gates  of  Jerusalem."  Jer.  xxxvi,  30:  "His  (Jehoia- 
kim's)  dead  body  shall  be  cast  out  in  the  day  to  the  heat, 

"Eobinson  says  (page  55),  "The  first  English  Baptists,  when  they 
read  the  phrase  "  buried  in  baptism."  instantly  thought  of  an  English 
burial,  and  therefore  baptized  by  laying  the  body  in  the  form  of  bury- 
ing in  their  own  country.  But  they  might  have  observed  that  Paul 
wrote  to  Komans,  and  that  Eomans  did  not  bury,  but  burned  the  dead, 
and  buried  nothing  of  the  dead  but  their  ashes  in  urns;  so  that  no  fair 
reasoning  on  the  form  of  baptizing  can  be  drawn  from  the  mode  of 
burying  the  dead  in  England."  Yet  now,  driven  from  lexicons,  all 
ancient  versions,  and  utterly  defeated  on  every  favorite  field,  this  meta- 
phorical text  is  their  last  and  only  support  from  their  own  stand- 
point. 

1.  Baptism  was  symbolic  of  innocence,  purity,  for  fifteen  hundred 
years ;  never  representing  burial. 

2.  In  John's  day  baptism  never  represented  burial.  No  one  pre- 
tends that  it  did. 

3.  Christ's  commission  (Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20)  leaves  it  where  it  ivas 
as  to  mode  or  design — symbolic  of  the  Spirit's  work,  never  hinting  a 
change  in  its  design. 

4  The  Acts  never  hint  a  change.  Nowhere  in  apostolic  use  does 
any  pretend  that  it  symbolized  death,  burial,  or  resurrection. 

5.  Hence  it  is  infinitely  absurd  to  select  a  highly  metaphorical  text, 
giving  it  a  meaning  that  has  no  foundation  in  any  previous  history,  nor 
in  a  single  literal  text  in  the  Bible,  as  an  argument. 


48  BAPTISM. 

and  in  the  night  to  the  frost.''  This  was  called  burying 
with  the  burial  of  an  ass — left  on  top  of  the  ground  a 
prey  to  weather  and  animals.  The  verb  here  rendered 
^^bury''  (thapto)  is  rendered  ^^embalmed^^  in  Genesis  1,  26; 
xlix,  30,  31;  1,  2,  7,  and  its  noun  "embalmers^'  or  "phy- 
sicians'' who  embalmed.  The  word  is  employed  in 
Greek  where  the  dead  are  laid  on  piles  of  wood  to  be 
burned,  on  scaffolds  to  be  consumed  by  the  elements.  It 
does  not  necessarily  imply  interment. 

5.  But  Wesley,  *  A.  Clarke,  etc.  say  it  refers  "  to  the 
ancient  practice  of  baptizing  by  immersion."  But  as  an 
offset  we  reply,  M.  Stuart,  Hodge,  and  Beza,  in  their  com- 
mentaries, as  well  as  others,  reject  this  view,  and  main- 
tain it  is  not  water  baptism,  not  immersion,  there  alluded 
to,  but  spiritual  baptism. 

6.  Worse  still  for  immersion.  No  Christian  father  of 
the  first  three  hundred  years  cites  that  as  water  baptism. 
Oi'igen,  the  father  of  commentators,  born  only  eighty- 
three  years  after  John's  death  and  the  most  learned 
scholar  of  the  church  for  sixteen  hundred  years,  main- 
tains it  elaborately  as  spiritual  baptism.  Not  till  super- 
stition and  idolatry  had  prostituted  water  baptism  into 
a  hideous  and  frightful  monstrosity  was  this  held  to  be 
water  baptism. 

7.  Even  Dr.  Wilkes,  usually  a  very  careful    man   in 

his  statements  compared  with  others  of  that  side,  says, 

"Now,  here  is  a  baptism.     It  is  declared  to  be  a  burial. 

It  is  also  declared  that  we  are  '  raised  up '  again"  (Lou. 

Debate,  p.  602,  after  quoting  Rom.  vi,  3,  4).     Notice  the 

*  In  Louisville  debate  I  copied  an  edition  of  Wesley's  Notes  that 
liad  not  the  words  "by  immersion"  in  Romans  vi,  4.  But  I  find  no 
other  copy  that  leaves  it  ofi";  besides,  it  is  evident  from  his  note  on 
Colossians  ii,  12,  as  well  as  the  words  on  Romans  vi,  4,  found  in  him, 
that  this  one  edition  is  changed,  and  "by  immersion  ''  were  his  words. 


JORDAN.  49 

blunders  here  made:  First,  it  is  not  called  or  declared 
to  be  a  burial.  The  burial  is  not  the  baptism,  but  the 
spiritual  effect  of  the  baptism;  second,  it  is  not  "de- 
clared that  we  are  ^raised  up'  again.''  No  such  words 
occur  in  that  text.  He  cites  them  with  quotation-marks 
as  if  there.  Christ  was  "  raised  up  from  the  dead/^  not 
from  water,  and  our  part  is,  "  we  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life  (verse  4).  We  avalk  in  newness  of  life 
IN  OUR  BURIED  CONDITION.  Hcucc  it  is  not  Under  water, 
but  to  be  "delivered,  baptized,  buried  by  baptism  into 
death  " — "  our  lives  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 

8.  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  116)  says,  "The  phrase 
^planted  in  the  likeness  of  death'  is,  if  possible,  still 
stronger  [i.  e.  than  buried  by  baptism  into  death]. 
What  is  the  likeness  of  death?  A  burial  is  the  likeness 
of  death,  and  the  only  likeness  of  death."     (Italics  his.) 

1.  Here  the  doctor  misquoted  the  passage,  leaving  out 
"  his "  before  death,  and  makes  it  read  "  planted  in  the 
likeness  of  death "  generally  instead  of  likeness  of  "  his 
death,"  which  was  by  crueifixiony  hanging  on  a  cross. 
Where  is  there  a  likeness  between  a  dip  under  the  water 
and  dying  on  a  cross? 

2.  He  makes  this  word  "planted  together  "  imply  moc?a/ 
action,  as  people  now  plant  corn,  potatoes,  and  such  other 
things  as  they  "cover  up!"  Does  he  not  know  that 
"plant"  in  the  English  Bible  never  so  applies?  That 
trees,  vineyards,  etc.  are  "  planted,"  but  in  no  case  "  cov- 
ered up?" 

The  word  in  Romans  vi,  5,  which  he  thinks  is  stronger 
than  "buried  by  baptism  into  death"  is  sumphutoi,  from 
sumphuo,  born,  engraft,  planted,  grow  together.  Ander- 
son, immersionist,  renders  it  in  this  place  "  united  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death."  In  no  case  is  it 
4 


50  BAPTISM. 

modal.  If  it  were  it  is  utterly  destructive  of  immersion, 
as  Christ's  death  was  not  under  water^  but  hanging  on 
a  cross. 

10.  It  can  not  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that  any  doc- 
trine or  view  of  Scripture  that  is  supported  by  men's  views 
of  the  most  highly-wrought  metaphors  and  by  these  alone, 
and  only  two  such — they  the  same  in  substance — in  all 
the  Bible,  without  any  literal  verse  any  where,  with  no 
plain,  historic  record  to  give  explanation  or  direction — we 
repeat,  such  a  w^ay  of  interpreting  the  Bible  is  so  absurd, 
so  pernicious,  so  destructive  of  all  processes  of  discover- 
ing truth,  that  it  is  never  allowed  in  law,  never  allowed 
in  science,  and  never  tolerated  in  the  study  of  divinity, 
save  by  the  most  distempered  partisanship  and  intolerable 
bigotry. 

The  '^  buried  by  baptism  into  death ''  is  the  efect  of  the 
'^baptized  into  Jesus  Christ"  of  verse  3.  The  ^Mjuried 
into  death''  is  not  the  baptism,  but  the  effect  of  the  bap- 
tism. ^^  Therefore  we  are  buried  by  the  baptism,"  so  the 
Greek  reads,  ^4nto  death,"  i.  e.  to  sin.  The  "buried"  is 
the  same  as  "crucified"  (verse  G),  as  "grafted  together 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death"  (verse  5) ;  the  same  as  ^^cir- 
cumcised with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  .  .  . 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death"  —  not  into  Ava- 
tcr  (Col.  ii,  11,  12).  The  parties  are  raised,  as  Anderson, 
Wesley,  and  others  have  it,  "by  your  faith  in  the  energy 
of  God"  —  not  by  the  arm  of  the  minister,  as  in  immer- 
sion. 

12.  Again,  this  buried  condition  is  given  by  Paul  as 
evidence  that  all  who  are  in  it  ^^ are  dead  to  sin,"  "cruci- 
fied with  Christ,"  "  grafted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,"  "freed  from  sin,"  etc.  But  no  one  believes  that 
water  baptism  is  proof  that  we  "are  dead  to  sin,"  etc. 


JORDAN.  51 

The  apostles  never  appeal  to  vv^ater  baptism  as  proof  of 
^' death  to  siii/^     Hence  it  can  not  be  water  baptism.* 

Wesley,  Clarke,  and  the  writers  of  modern  times  who 
agree  with  them  mainly  held  proselyte  baptism  to  be  the 
baptism  referred  to;  but  immersionists  unanimously  hold 
that  it  came  in  later,  and  so  reject  the  groundwork  of 
Wesley^s  and  Clarke^s  views.  All  those  taking  the  im- 
mersion view  translate  "are"  by  "were  buried.'^     But, 

1.  All  standards  on  Greek  grammar  are  against  this,  as 
I  abundantly  show  in  the  Louisville  debate. 

2.  All  ancient  versions  are  against  it. 

3.  By  this  change  we  have  Paul  saying,  to  be  consist- 
ent, "we  were  dead  to  sin,'^  but  are  not  so  now,  but  "con- 
tinue in  sin;"  "our  old  man  loas  crucified,"  but  is  not  so 
now;  "he  that  was  dead  loas  freed  from  sin;"  "for  you 
loere  dead,  and  your  life  was  hid  with  Christ  in  God" 
(Col.  ii,  12;  iii,  3).t 

It  should  be  remarked  that, 

1.  No  standard  lexicon  ever  renders  haptidzo  by  "bury." 

2.  The  very  few  inferior  ones  that  give  it  put  it  as  a  re- 
mote, metaphorical  meaning. 

3.  Immersionists  sometimes  dare  render  the  ohruo — 
"overwhelm"  of  the  lexicons — by  bury,  so  reckless  are 
they. 

*  For  many  other  arguments  and  an  elaborate  defense  of  the  jjresent 
tense  of  Eoinans  vi,  4,  in  English,  see  Louisville  Debate,  Wilkes-Ditzler, 
pp.  644-648.  In  that,  Winer,  p.  217;  Jelf,  vol.  2,  pp.  66,  67;  Kuhner, 
Gram.  346-7,  and  all  authorities  support  our  present  version  in  the 
tense  "  are  buried." 

t  Since  I  obtained  Origen's  Works  ( nine  volumes  folio )  I  was 
pleased  to  find  that  he  cited  all  the  texts  I  had  cited  in  the  Louisville 
debate — "I  die  daily;"  ''Always  bearing  about  in  our  body  the  dying 
of  our  Lord,"  etc.  (2  Cor.  iv,  10) ;  "  We  who  live  are  always  delivered  eis 
(into)  death" — as  the  same  as  Komans  vi,  4;  Colossians  ii,  12:  "Always 
delivered;  "  "  are  buried  by  baptism  into  death ;  "  "to  sin;  "  "our  lives 
arc  hid  with  Christ,"  etc. 


52  BAPTISM. 

John  iii,  5,  is  quoted  to  support  immersion,  as  if  emerg- 
ence out  of  the  element  was  implied.     It  is  here  assumed, 

1.  That  this  is  water  baptism.  It  was  not  held  to  be 
water  baptism  by  any  writer  we  have  ever  met  of  the  first 
three  centuries ;  yet  we  have  thought  it  did  allude  to  water 
baptism,  but  never  to  Christian  baptism. 

2.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  say,  ^^  born  of  circum- 
cision^' (Lightfoot's  Horse  Heb.  et  Tal.).  Did  they  emerge 
out  of  circumcision  ? 

3.  There  is  nothing  modal  in  the  Greek  word  here  used. 
It  implies  no  more  than  to  be  impressed,  influenced  to  the 
extent  of  change.  "I  have  begotten  you''  is  the  same 
word.  It  is  often  rendered  "begotten"  by  A.  Campbell, 
Anderson,  and  all  immersionist  translators.     Hence, 

4.  It  reads  "born  of  water  and  of  the  Sjnrit.'^  Does 
"born  of  the  Spirit"  in  the  same  sentence  imply  "emerg- 
ence" out  of  the  Spirit?  Surely  not,  bnt  to  receive  the 
Spirit  poured  out  upon  them. 

As  imraersionists  cling  so  desperately  now  to  John's 
baptism,  we  must  notice  the  use  they  make  of  en  in  con- 
nection with  the  water.  It  is  common  to  all,  from  Carson 
or  Gale  to  Dr.  Graves  and  Wilkes,  to  insist  that  en  necessa- 
rily involves  the  idea  not  of  instrumentality, — ^^with  water," 
but  "  in  water."  Hence  we  have  produced  a  vast  array  of 
texts  never  produced  before  on  this  subject. 

In  the  Greek  from  the  Hebrew,  6'  or  v^  ^^  with,^  we 
have  the  expression  scores  of  times  in  the  laws  of  Moses, 
in  every  instance  of  which  save  two  (unless  I  missed  in 
count,  and  I  was  careful)  the  expression  wash  icith  water, 
rendered  "  bathe  in  water  "  sometimes  in  James's  version, 
is  simply  hudati — icith  water.  The  en  (^v)  which  the  im- 
mersionists  render  "m"  does  not  occur  save  in  two  in- 
stances.    In  other  places  the  en  occurs,  clearly  indicating. 


JOEDAN.  53 

like  the  Hebrew  preposition  he,  instrumentality  —  with. 
Ezek.  xvi,  9 :  ^'  I  have  washed  thee  {en)  loith  water/^  If 
one  shall  say  the  "en"  in  that  case  points  to  immersion,  we 
reply,  first,  the  verse  refutes  that.  "  Then  washed  I  thee 
with  (en)  water ;  yea,  I  thoi^oughly  ivashed  away  thy  blood 
from  thee,  and  I  anointed  thee  (en)  with  oiV  This  language 
clearly  imports  that  the  water  is  applied  to  the  person.  It 
is  figurative  of  course  ;  but,  second,  the  with  (en)  oil  settles 
the  force  of  en  to  be  with.  The  oil  is  poured  on  the  party 
anointed.  Yet  en  expresses  it — with  oil.*  Half  of  the 
New  Testament  references  in  the  common  text  use  en,  one 
half  do  not.  In  the  places  where  en  is  used,  the  versions, 
like  the  Vulgate  and  Luther,  have  it  with  water.  So 
Isaiah  iv,  4 :  God  will  '^  purge  away  the  filth  of  the  daugh- 
ters of  Jerusalem,  en  with  (or  by)  the  spirit  of  burning.'^ 

In  the  books  of  Moses,  in  the  Greek,  en  occurs  forty- 
one  times  from  Exodus  xxix,  2,  4,  etc.  to  Numbers  xxxv, 
25,  en  elaio — "with  oil;"  not  once  is  it  simply  elaio  where 
the  oil  is  poured  on  the  parties. 

In  Leviticus  xiv,  51,  "And  [shall  2Jererranei~\  sprinkle 
with  them^'  [en  autois  in  the  LXX,  used  by  the  apostles — 
the  hyssop,  blood,  etc.]  upon  "  the  house  seven  times" 
(verse  52).  "And  he  shall  cleanse  the  house  (en)  en  to  haimati 
[kv  TO)  atixari]  WITH  the  blood  of  the  bird,  and  (en)  with  the 
running  [living]  water  \_h  toj  udavc],  and  (en)  with  the  liv- 
ing bird,  and  (en)  with  the  cedar- wood,  and  (en)  with 
the  hyssop,  and  (en)  with  the  scarlet."  Here  consecu- 
tively seven  times  en  occurs  in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  used 
by  the  apostles  and  early  Christians  indicating  instrumen- 
tality every  time — is  repeated  before  every  noun,  meaning 
with  each  time,  as  none  will  question.     The  house  was 

••■  The  same  force  of  en  (kv)  is  seen  in  Exodus  xiii,  9 ;  Revelation  xiv, 
15;  vi,  5;  Isaiah  iv,  4;  1  John  v,  6;  and  many  other  places. 


54  BAPTISM. 

sprinkled  with  blood,  with  water,  and  en  is  used  for  the 
^^  with  '^  EVERY  time.  In  Exodus  xii,  9,  "  sodden  {en  hudati) 
with  water.''  1  Kings  xviii,  4 :  "And  fed  them  [the  one 
hundred  prophets  in  caves  by  fifties]  en,  with  bread  and 
water"  (verse  13),  en,  "with  bread  and  water.'' 

Ezek.  xvi,  4:  "In  the  day  thou  wast  born,  neither  wast 
thou  washed  (en  hudati)  with  water." 

Often  to  see  "  with  the  eyes  "  is  expressed  by  en  ophthal- 
mois.  So  Ezek.  xl,  4;  2  Kings  xxii,  20;  Zech.  ix,  8; 
Sirach  xxxv,  7 ;  li,  35.  "  With  power,"  is  expressed  by 
en  dunamel  repeatedly  (Acts  iv,  7,  etc.) ;  with  the  voice,  en 
phonae,  often  (2  Sam.  xv,  25 ;  2  Kings  viii,  56  (55  Gr.) ; 
xviii,  27). 

In  1  Chronicles  xv,  25,  "with  (cv)  en,  shouting,  and 
(en)  with  sound  of  the  cornet,  and  (en)  ivith  trumpets,  and 
(en)  v-ith  cymbals,  and  (en)  with  psalteries,"  etc.  In  the 
Greek  the  en,  with,  occurs  six  times  in  that  one  verse  as 
here  for  with.  So  2  Chronicles  xv,  14,  it  occurs  three 
times  for  loith — "  with  a  loud  voice  (en),  with  (en)  trump- 
ets," etc. 

Cases  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely,*  but  these  are 
more  than  are  needed. 

But  our  advantage  is  greater  still.  While  the  inferior 
Greek  texts  somewhat  divide  the  case  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment between  the  cases  where  en  occurs  with  hudati,  wa- 
ter, and  simply  hudati  as  dative  of  instrument,  Avith  water, 
the  great  modern  scholars  Tregelles,  Tischendorf,  Alford, 
etc.,  give  us  a  far  more  correct  Greek  text  with  the  en 
thrown  out  of  Mark  i,  8,  also  giving  us  Luke  iii,  11,  16; 
Mark  i,  8;  Acts  1,  5;  xi,  15,  16,  against  Matt,  iii,  11; 
John  i,  33,  etc. — two  Avho  have  en,  and  that  en  the  facts  just 

■*See  e.  g.  Genesis  xlix,  11;  2  Samuel  xiii,  22;  2  Peter  ii,  16; 
1  Thessalonians  iv,  10. 


JORDAX.  05 

given  show  means  ivith.  Above  all  we  have  already  seen 
that  the  mode  was  given — baptized  with  the  Spirit  sent 
down  from  above,  poured  upon  them. 

DECENCY HEALTH — CONVENIENCE. 

These  questions  are  gravely  discussed  by  Elder  P.  H. 
Mell,  "  Professor  of  Greek  and  Latin  in  Mercer  Univer- 
sity, Georgia/'  in  a  reply  to  Dr.  Summers's  Treatise  on 
Baptism,  pages  163-169.  There  are  some  facts  to  which 
we  call  their  attention  who  favor  immersion : 

1.  Immersionists  wear  suits  of  clothes  made  of  India 
rubber  and  other  w*ater-proof  materials  to  protect  them- 
selves when  immersing  candidates.  Such  suits  are  adver- 
tised for  sale. 

2.  Suits  of  clothes  are  specially  made  for  parties  to  be 
immersed,  advertised  as  such,  on  questions  of  decency — 
designed  to  guard  against  indecencies  in  the  act  of  im- 
mersion. 

3.  Baptisteries  in  such  comparatively  mild  climates  as 
Northern  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Illinois,  etc.,  have  furnaces 
made  under  them  to  ivarm  the  vmter  to  guard  against  ill 
health,  suffering,  and  discomfort. 

4.  In  some  cases  in  the  same  latitude  the  baptistery 
adjoins  rooms  that  have  special  conveniences  for  warming 
and  affording  the  immersed  parties  the  means  of  changing 
clothes  at  once  and  without  risk  to  health  as  well  as  im- 
proper  exposure  to  gaze. 

5.  In  one  leading  immersion  church,  corner  of  Fourth 
and  Walnut  ("  Campbellite  "),  Louisville,  Ky.,  screens  exist 
to  guard  ladies  from  the  sight  of  the  audience  while  de- 
scending into  the  water,  which  are  run  back  out  of  the  way 
as  soon  as  the  lady  is  well  fixed  in  the  water  to  undergo 


56  BAPTISM. 

immersion.  The  screens  are  run  back  between  her  and 
the  audience  as  soon  as  she  is  dipped,  so  that  she  can  not 
be  seen  as  she  ascends  out  of  the  baptistery. 

6.  Is  not  this  admission  of  the  weight  of  all  the  charges 
brought  ?  Is  it  not  an  advertisement  of  the  fact  that  intel- 
ligent immersionists  regard  it  as  unhealthy,  dangerous,  in- 
decent in  appearance  and  also  impraGticable  in  a  large  part 
of  the  globe? 

7.  If  warm  rooms,  furnace-furnished  baptisteries,  water- 
proof clothes  for  administrators,  special  suits  for  candidates 
be  necessary  in  such  latitudes  as  Louisville  and  Paris,  Ky., 
Cincinnati,  Chicago,  and  other  cities,  what  of  the  regions 
in  Northern  Canada,  Greenland,  and  various  regions  where 
it  would  take  enough  oil  to  support  half  a  colony  for 
months  to  make  fire  enough  to  melt  ice  enough  to  im- 
merse one  person,  and  he  or  she  most  certainly  freeze  to 
death  before  such  candidate  could  be  dressed  and  warmed  ? 
Is  the  gospel  to  be  excluded  forever  from  such  latitudes? 
Without  coal  or  wood,  perpetual  ice  around  them,  in  other 
less  northerly  regions  so  cold  and  chilly  as  that  death  is 
almost  certain  unless  good  furnaces  were  active  under  the 
baptistery  and  warmed  houses  adjoining,  I  can  not  see  how 
any  one  can  make  immersion,  as  the  one  only  mode,  com- 
patible with  the  teaching  and  spirit  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  a  large  part  of  the  world  it  is  utterly  impossible — in 
larger  regions  impracticable. 

8.  A  person  immersed  in  filthy  water,  in  mere  filthy 
ponds,  is  not  baptized  at  all.  "Having  our  bodies  washed 
with  PURE  water"  (Heb.  x,  22)  does  not  mean  filthy  water. 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAVEE.  57 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Baptism  Out  of  the  Layer. 

The  most  perfect  historic  record  of  baptism  that  we  have 
is  that  of  the  ancient  Jews.  It  is  that  of  the  laver.  Here 
we  have  a  record — a  history.  It  runs  through  fifteen  hun- 
dred years.  The  data  are  most  abundant.  If  we  fail  to 
get  light  from  such  a  record,  with  such  a  vast  literature, 
inspired  and  uninspired,  encircling  it,  we  may  well  despair 
of  understanding  the  matter  altogether. 

In  this,  the  origin  of  symbolic  baptism  as  a  divine 
rite,  commanded  by  Jehovah  and  performed  by  his  peo- 
ple, we  may  clearly  see  the  design  and  correct  the  many 
abuses  of  baptism.  We  can  clearly  see  that  it  was  sym- 
bolic, but  not  of  death,  of  burial,  of  resurrection  ;  not  a 
door  into  the  church  ;  not  an  initiatory  rite  ;  not  for  remis- 
sion of  sins ;  not  really  sacramental. 

In  Exodus  XXX,  18-21,  we  read  of  the  laver  that  stood 

between  the  altar  of  burnt  offerings  and  the  door  of  the 

tabernacle.      "Aaron   and  his   sons   shall  wash   (ixichats) 

their  hands  and  their  feet  \_eh,  Heb.  min\  out  of  it.^'^    "And 

when  they  go  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  they 

shall  wash  with  water,  that  they  die  not."     "  Thou  shalt 

bring  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 

the  congregation,  and  ivash  them  with  water  (Ex.  xl,  12). 

"*  Exodus  XXX,  18-21:  Rachats;  Greek,  Koi,  vitperac  e^  avrov;  xl,  30, 
viTTTiovTat  e^  avTov;  verse  31,  kviTrreTac  k^  avrov.  This  is  carelessly  ren- 
dered in  James's  version  "  thereat "  for  "  out  of  it." 


58  BAPTISM. 

Of  the  laver  (verse  3) :  '^And  put  water  therein  to  wash 
(ek)  out  of  it.^^  "  Moses,  and  Aaron  and  his  sons,  washed 
their  hands  and  their  feet  out  of  it  (ek).^^ 

In  the  first  hiver  was  water  for  washing  both  the  Le- 
vites  and  the  sacrificial  meats.  In  the  later  laver,  separate 
ones  were  made  for  washing  the  meats.  The  first  time 
tliese  baptisms  were  carried  out  is  in  Leviticus  viii,  4-6, 
where  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle,  according  to  the  above  commands,  and 
washed  them  with  water. 

1.  We  are  all  aQ:reed  that  these  laver  washino-s  were 
baptisms.*  We  have  no  dispute  here.  It  is  a  unanimous 
agreement  of  both  sides.  In  Hebrews  ix,  10,  Paul  tells 
of  the  tabernacle  services  that  "stood  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  divers  baptisms'^ — "divers  washings"  in  our  version. 
All  immersionists  refer  these  to  the  washings  of  the  laver 
and  other  like  washings.  Fuller,  Gale,  Hinton,  Carson, 
A.  Campbell,  Judd,  Ingham,  Graves,  Wilkes,  all  assert 
they  were  immersions,  baptisms.  Judith  xii,  7  :  "  Washed 
herself  [baptized  herself]  at  the  fountain  of  water.''  f 
Sirach  (Ecclesiasticus,  apocryphal)  xxvi,  31  (some  copies 
verses  31,  30):  "He  that  baptizes  himself  from  [touch- 
ing] a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  is  he  prof- 
ited by  his  washing?''  Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38,  ap- 
ply haptidzo  to  the  daily  washings  of  the  Jews.  So  do 
many  other  Greek  and  Hebrew  writers.  Hence  there  ip 
'no  controversy  here. 

A.  Campbell's  language  will  represent  them  fully  on 
the  main  issue.      "And  the  laver  filled  with  water.   .   .  . 
In  this  laver  .  .  .  the  priests  always  washed  themselves 

*  In  Hebrew  expressed  by  rachats;  v'nrru,  Xovu,  etc.  in  Greek. 

'I  EBaTTTi^ETo  .  .  .  ETTi  T?jo  TTTjvTjo  Tov  v6aT0G.  Conant  tells  US  the  Syriac 
reads  ''immersed"  etc.  This  is  utterly  untrue.  It  is  aynad,  wash.  See 
on  Syriac  Version',  amad,  Chapter  XXIV. 


BAPTISM    OUT   OF    THE    LAYER.  59 

before  they  approached  the  sanctuary. '^  ^^This  vessel 
^vas  called  in  Greek  loutaer,  and  the  water  in  it  loutron. 
.  .  .  Paul  more  than  once  alludes  to  this  usage  in  the 
tabernacle  in  his  epistles,  and  once  substitutes  Christian 
immersion  in  its  place. ^^  ^^  Again,  '^The  divers  washings 
[baptismois]  of  cups,  etc.  and  things  mentioned  f  among 
the  traditions  of  the  elders,  and  the  institutions  of  the 
laver  were  for  ceremonial  cleansing.  Hence  all  by  immer- 
sion.^^ X  Let  it  be  noted  here  how  explicitly  he  states  the 
design  of  baptism  as  on^ma%  instituted — "ceremonial 

CLEANSING.^^ 

The  learned  Baptist,  Dr.  Gale,  elaborates  the  same 
thing  (Reflections  on  Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  101,  of  WalPs  His- 
tory of  Infant  Baptism),  urging  that  rachats  "1  think 
always,  including  dipping,"  —  tells  of  this  laver,  cites 
2  Chronicles  iv,  6,  on  it,  and  insists  that  they  dij^i^ed  in 
it — immersed. 

2.  The  next  point  is  to  determine  tlie  mode  of  these 
baptisms  that  ran  through  fifteen  hundred  years  of  daily 
and  hourly  occurrence.  Immersionists  say  they  immersed 
themselves  in  the  laver.  We  deny  this,  and  for  the  fol- 
lowing insurmountable  reasons : 

First.  By  the  original  command,  already  cited  from 
Exodus,  they  were  to  wash,  not  in,  but  (e^)  '^out  of  it.'' 

*  Chris.  Baptist,  vol.  5,  401. 

t  Chris.  Baptism,  167 ;  Dr.  Brents's  Gospel  Plan,  338-9,  same  in 
substance.  A.  Campbell  cites  the  washings  of  persons  in  Leviticus  xv 
andxvi  entire,  thus:  In  Leviticus  xv,  5,  8,  10,  11,  13,  16,  18,  21,  22, 
27.  Here  are  ten  divers  bathings  etc.  Also  Leviticus  xvi,  26,  27 ; 
xvii,  15,  16.  Also  in  Numbers  xix,  7,  8,  19.  He  has  it  "  sixteen  different 
bathings."  "  These  are  therefore  called  by  Paul  divers  baptisms,  or 
baptisms  on  divers  occasions  "  ! !  Chris.  Baptism,  174,  177.  Did  mortal 
ever  read  such  interpretations  ? 

i  It  hardly  deserves  comment  when  a  man  tells  us  the  Greek  dia- 
phorois  refers  to  different  occasions.  It  means  always  different  in  kind 
— diverse. 


60  BAPTISM. 

The  words  (min,  ek)  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  are  repeated 
over  and  again  by  the  sacred  writer. 

Second.  In  every  place  in  the  Pentateuch  where  they 
were  to  wash  in  connection  with  the  laver,  it  was  either 
said  ^^  wash  out  of  it/^  or  simply  "  wash  with  water."  * 

Third.  If  any  thing  in  all  the  Bible  is  clearly  and  re- 
peatedly stated  it  is  that  if  any  thing  or  person  needed 
ceremonial  clean shig  from  defilement,  needed  baptism,  in 
every  case  where  such  person  or  thing  touched  a  person 
or  object  it  was  defiled.  If  he  touched  water  in  any  ves- 
sel it  could  not  be  used.  If  the  unclean  touched  water, 
unless  a  fountain  or  confluence  of  running  waters,  the 
water  became  unclean,  and  could  not  be  used  for  drink- 
ing, cooking,  washing  meats,  or  any  thing  (Lev.  xi,  29- 
36).  If  water  in  a  vessel  was  touched  by  an  unclean 
object  the  vessel,  if  of  earthen  matter,  was  to  be  broken ; 
if  of  wood,  it  must  be  rinsed  out  with  water;  if  of  metal- 
lic substance  to  endure  fire,  it  must  be  burned  out  and 
sprinkled  with   water,  and    not    used    for   seven   days.f 

*  'Nlferai  vdart.  In  all  the  five  books  of  Moses  I  found  en,  ev,  only 
named  once  with  wash  with  water.  We  have  seen  its  force  already  in 
such  connections. 

t  "These  also  shall  be  unclean  unto  you  among  the  creeping  things  that 
creep  upon  the  earth ;  the  weasel,  and  the  mouse,  and  the  tortoise  after 
his  kind.  And  the  ferret,  and  the  chameleon,  and  the  lizard,  and  the 
snail,  and  the  mole.  These  are  unclean  to  you  among  all  that  creep: 
whosoever  doth  touch  them,  when  they  be  dead,  shall  be  unclean  until 
the  even.  And  upon  whatsoever  any  of  them,  when  they  are  dead, 
doth  fall,  it  shall  be  unclean ;  whether  it  be  any  vessel  of  wood,  or  rai- 
ment, or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever  vessel  It  be,  wherein  ajii/  work  is  done, 
it  must  be  put  into  water,  and  it  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even ;  so  it 
shall  be  cleansed.  And  every  earthen  vessel,  whereinto  any  of  them 
ftilleth,  whatsoever  is  in  it  shall  be  unclean  :  and  ye  shall  break  it.  Of 
all  meat  which  may  be  eaten,  that  on  Avhich  such  water  cometh  shall  be 
unclean ;  and  all  the  drink  that  may  be  drunk  in  every  such  vessel  shall 
be  unclean.  And  every  thiny  whereupon  aiiy  pai't  of  their  carcass  fall- 
eth  shall  be  unclean ;  whether  it  be  oven,  or  ranges  for  pots,  they  shall 


BAPTISM    OUT  OF    THE    LAYER.  61 

"  Whatsoever  the  unclean  person  toucheth  shall  be  un- 
clean/' "  He  that  toucheth  the  water  of  separation  shall 
be  unclean  until  even/'  '^  Whatsoever  is  in  "  any  vessel 
wherein  any  unclean  thing  falleth  "  shall  be  unclean." 

Hence  we  have  the  plain  Bible  record  for  it  that  if 
any  person  needing  ceremonial  cleansing  had  dipped  even 
his  fingers  or  hand  in  the  laver,  or  into  any  vessel  of 
water,  the  water  would  be  unclean,  have  to  be  thrown 
away,  and  the  vessel  broken  if  of  earthen  matter,  burnt 
out  if  able  to  endure  the  fire. 

The  ancient  rabbins  are  full  of  additions  to  all  this,  so 
carefnl  were  they  of  outward  ceremonies.  In  washing 
the  hands,  "  If,  therefore,  the  waters  that  went  above  the 
juncture  (of  the  hand)  return  upon  the  hands,  they  are 
unclean.''*  If  the  return  of  the  water  that  had  touched 
other  parts  than  the  hand,  by  returning  U23on  the  hand 
defiled  it  again,  how  much  more  would  immersion  of 
the  whole  unclean  person  in  the  laver?  And  one  after 
another  would  certainly  not  mitigate  the  matter. 

Fourth.  The  laver  in  Solomon's  temple  for  these 
washings  was  cast  at  the  fords  of  Jordan,  placed  in  the 
temple  (1  Kings  vii,  23;  2  Chron.  iv,  2-8),  and  was  of 
great  size,  viz.  ten  cubits  in  diameter,  five  cubits  deep — 
i.  e.  eight  feet  nine  inches,  and  held  water  enough,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  to  make  three  hundred  and  seventy-five 
forty-gallon  barrels  of  water.  According  to  Dr.  Gale  it 
held  nearly  a  thousand  of  our  barrels  of  water.  It  was 
placed  upon  twelve  molten  oxen,  which  made  it  twenty- 
be  broken  down ;  for  they  are  unclean,  and  shall  be  unclean  unto  you. 
Nevertheless  a  fountain  or  pit,  ^vhei^ein  there  is  plenty  of  water,  shall  be 
clean;  but  that  which  toucheth  their  carcass  shall  be  unclean."  Lev.  xi, 
29-36.  Num.  xxxi,  23,  24;  xix,  21,  22;  Lev.  xv  and  xvi;  vi,  28;  vii, 
18-21.     All  these  uncleannesses  required  baptism.     Lev.  xi,  26. 

-■•  Lightfoot,  Horse  Heb.  et  Tal.,  II,  417;  Alsop,  38;  and  many  like 
cases  given. 


62  BAPTISM. 

one  feet  from  the  level  of  the  floor  to  the  top  of  the 
laver.  *  The  water  was  brought  in  aqueducts  under 
ground  some  four  miles  from  a  distant  fountain,  and 
made  to  rise  up  through  the  hollow  pedestal  into  the 
basin,  and  then  there  were,  first  two,  later  twelve  cocks 
at  the  basis  out  of  which  the  water  ran,  at  which  the 
priests  baptized.  The  laver  was  thus  made  twenty-one 
feet  high  to  keep  any  unclean  person  from  touching  the 
water  by  which  it  would  be  defiled. 

If  a  person  got  into  the  vessel,  then,  he  had,  1.  To  vio- 
late the  express  precept  to  "wash  out  of  it;  2.  He  would 
violate  all  the  facts  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers  cited  about 
not  using  defiled  water;  3.  Tie  would  violate  the  repeated 
precepts  of  the  rabbins,  who  taught  it  "  was  better  to  die 
of  thirst  than  disobey"  the  laws  of  rabbins.  Lightfoot 
gives  us  many  such  facts;  4.  He  would  have  to  leap  twenty- 
one  fed  high  to  get  to  the  top;  5.  When  in  the  vessel  he 
would  have  to  swim  or  drown,  as  it  "contained"  the 
amount  of  water  named  in  2  Chronicles  iv;  6.  He  would 
have  to  leap  down  twenty-one  feet  on  the  solid  stone  pave- 
ment ;  7.  The  vessel  would  then  have  to  be  emptied  of  all 
its  water,  burnt  out,  and  cleansed  for  seven  days  before  it 
could  be  used.  All  this  is  involved  by  the  immersion  the- 
ory; 8.  All  this  must  be  done  in  the  presence  of  multitudes 
of  men  and  women — of  course  the  clothes  retained  on  the 
person. 

"The  basis  of  it  [the  laver]  was  so  contrived  as  to  re- 
ceive the  water  which  ran  out  of  the  laver  at  certain 
spouts.  At  these  spouts  the  priests  washed  their  hands 
and  their  feet  before  they  entered  upon  their  ministry;  for 
if  they  had  put  their  hands  and  feet  into  the  laver  the 

"••■  In  the  Louisville  debate  I  thought  it  by  shortest  measure  fourteen 
feet.    Walton  shows  it  was  twenty-one  feet. 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAYER.  63 

water  would  have  been  defiled  by  the  first  that  washed 
therein.  And  the  sea  of  brass  made  by  Solomon  was  so 
high  that  they  could  not  put  their  feet  into  it.  The  Tal- 
mudists  tell  us  there  were  twelve  spouts  or  cocks,  in  the 
form  of  a  woman^s  breast,  to  let  the  water  out  of  the  la- 
ver/^*  etc.  The  mode  of  washing  the  meat  out  of  the 
laver  is  given — ^Hhat  on  which  such  water  cometh^' 
(Lev.  xi,  34). 

Fifth.  Joseph  us,  who  lived  in  the  apostolic  age,  was  a 
high-priest  of  vast  learning  and  candor,  and  baptized  daily 
himself  at  the  laver.  He  interchanges  icash  and  sprinkle 
in  speaking  of  the  laver.  '^The  sea  to  be  for  the  washing 
of  the  hands  and  the  feet  of  the  priests.'^  '^  Whence  the 
priests  might  wash  their  hands  and  sjjrinhle  their  jeetP 
'"'  When  he  [Moses]  had  sprinkled  Aaron's  vestments, 
himself  and  his  sons. ''  f     He  washed  Aaron  and  his  sons. 

Sixth.  The  Bible  habitually  speaks  of  a  person  being 
washed,  just  as  we  and  all  people  do  who  wash  only  a  given 
part  of  the  body.  John  xiii,  5-10,  records  where  Christ 
washed  the  disciples'  feet,  yet  said,  "If  I  wash  tliee  not," 
"  He  that  is  washed."  In  Matthew  xxvi,  6-12,  anointing 
the  head  with  oil  was  done  "  to  my  body."  Numbers  viii,  7, 
applies  the  phrase  "whole  body;"  in  Greek  (/rav  ro  o-a>//.a), 
to  the  face.  So  Job  ix,  30.  Hence  (John  ii,  6)  the  jars  of 
water  were  for  the  purification  of  the  Jews — washing.  But 
did  they  immerse  in  those  little  water-pots  and  violate  all 
their  laws  on  purification  at  the  same  time? 

Seventh.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan,  being  a  paraphrase 
and   not  literal,  like  those    of  Onkelos  and  Ben  Uzziai, 

•==■•  Brown's  Antiquities,  II,  189-141;  Kitto's  Cyclo.,  Art.  Laver; 
Eneyclo.  Eel.  Knowledge,  old  edition,  with  pictures  of  it,  and  water 
running  out  for  washing;  Walton's  immense  picture  of  it,  vol.  \, 
Polyglott. 

t  Antiquities,  vol.  8,  chap.  8,  sees.  5,  6;  vol.  3,  chap.  6,  sec.  2. 


64  BAPTISM. 

shows  the  same  truth  on  this  question.  On  Exodus  xxx, 
19,  where  they  were  to  ^Svash  out  of  it/'  he  has  it,  "They 
shall  take  for  a  washing  of  purification  out  of  it,^^  and 
Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  sanctify  (kadosh)  with  the  waters 
their  hands  and  feet."  Again,  "  And  put  therein  living 
waters  for  sanctifying,  so  that  they  should  not  fail  nor  be- 
come dead  all  days'' — forever.  "And  Moses  and  Aaron 
and  his  sons  received  (nasab)  out  of  it  [water]  for  washing, 
and  sanctified  their  hands  and  their  feet  out  of  if'  {min- 
yeah). 

Eighth.  That  is  not  all.  In  Christ's  day,  in  addition  to 
all  these  requirements — baptizing  every  time  they  touched 
a  dead  body,  an  unclean  animal,  or  one  who  had  touched 
the  unclean  or  entered  the  house  where  the  dead  were — 
Mark  vii,  3,  4;  Luke  xi,  38,  and  all  Talmudic  Avriters  show 
that  "all  the  Jews"  as  well  as  "the  Pharisees"  baptized 
every  time  they  came  from  the  market-place — public 
square  of  the  city.  A.  Campbell,  Anderson,  and  the  Bap- 
tists translate  Mark  vii,  4,  immerse.  It  is  wash  in  our 
version.  We  ask  immersionists  how  these  Jews,  in  a  coun- 
try so  destitute  of  water  as  Palestine  is  from  three  to  five 
months  in  every  year,  more  or  less,  obtained  water  sufficient 
for  such  constant  immersions?  They  tell  us,  then,  of  cis- 
terns twenty-two  feet  deep,  sixteen  feet  wide,  in  some  cases 
hewn  out  of  solid  rocks,  in  which  water  is  kept  for  the  dry 
seasons.  Very  well.  But  did  they  immerse  their  entire 
bodies  in  these  cisterns?  Here  is  a  family  of  ten — hus- 
band and  wife  and  eight  sons  and  daughters.  They  bap- 
tized their  various  pieces  of  table  furniture  (verses  4,  8) 
as  well  as  their  "beds''  Mr.  Wilkes  (Louisville  Debate) 
and  Dr.  Graves,  A.  Campbell,  Gale,  and  Carson,  and  Ing- 

*Sirach  xxx,  1,  30:  (iaivTi^ofievoa  airb  vek^ov  k.  r.  1.  with  the  "wash" 
of  Numbers  xix ;  Leviticus  xi,  29-36 ;  xv ;  xvi  entire ;  etc. 


BAPTISM    OUT    OF    THE    LAYER.  65 

ham  quote  Maimonides,  where  they  baptize  their  beds,  in 
his  day  ''part  by  part/'  These  families  often  have  five, 
ten,  twenty,  thirty  servants,  all  of  whom  have  to  baptize 
every  day  from  once  to  three  or  four  times.  Now  who 
believes  they  all  immersed  themselves  daily — men,  women, 
male  and  female  servants,  ten  to  twenty — in  the  cistern  of 
water  out  of  which  they  daily  drank,  took  water  for  cook- 
ing, etc.?  Then  they  baptized  their  furniture  and  beds. 
Who  believes  they  immersed  these  beds,  couches,  etc.  daily 
in  the  cistern,  and  still  repeated  it  daily  for  three  months, 
yet  daily  used  the  water  for  drinking,  cooking,  etc.?  But 
you  have  to  believe  it  to  hold  on  to  the  immersion  theory. 
But  you  know  it  is  not  true.  Aside  from  the  repeated 
laws  already  quoted  decency  tells  us  it  is  not  true.  Jews 
so  doubly  nice  they  would  not  allow  themselves  in 
Christ's  day  to  touch  a  gentile  or  one  unclean  if  possible 
to  avoid  it,  and  would  not  go  in  where  Christ  was  being 
tried  lest  they  by  contact  be  defiled  —  they  drink  water 
thus  used ! !  Yet  the  immersion  theory  says  they  did ! ! 
No,  sir;  they  all  baptized  by  aifnsion.  Now,  then,  the 
laver  baptism  extended  through  fifteen  hundred  years. 
Every  Jew  baptized  every  day,  often  several  times.  They 
generally  numbered  five  and  six  millions.  Let  us  put  it 
at  the  loivest  figure.  Fifteen  hundred  years,  three  hundred 
and  sixty -five  days  in  a  year,  make  five  hundred  and 
forty-seven  thousand  five  hundred  days.  Then  multiply 
those  days  upon  the  number  of  Jews ;  put  them  at /oiir  mil- 
lions on  the  average  for  fifteen  hundred  years — from  Moses 
till  the  commission  was  given — we  have  one  trillion 

SIX  HUNDRED  AND  FORTY-FIVE  BILLIONS  FIVE  HUNDRED 

MILLIONS  (1,645,500,000,000)  of  instances  of  baptism,  all 
BY  AFFUSION,  when  John  began  to  baptize  Jews  as  a  Jew- 
that  Christ  might  be  made  manifest  to  Israel.    We  can 
5 


66  BAPTISM. 

now  all  see  the  force  of  '^  baptize  with  toater.^'  Now,  then, 
at  first  we  saw  that  John,  when  only  the  few  as  yet  came — 
no  noise,  no  multitude  yet  named — the  baptisms  at  Beth- 
any were  so  noiselessly  carried  on  that  it  is  only  named 
by  one  writer,  and  then  incidentally;  so  not  a  word  is  said 
of  multitudes  at  JEnon — the  noise  and  flush  of  the  crowds 
are  all  over.  At  Jordan  we  have  the  multitudes  (Mark  i, 
5;  Matt,  iii,  5) — 'Hhey  at  Jerusalem,^'  as  well  as  "all  Ju- 
dea,''  etc.  Now  why  did  he  go  to  those  three  places, 
at  two  of  which  were  running  waters,  we  know,  and  plenty 
of  it  at  the  first  one  ?  Avhen  so  few  as  yet  came — no  allu- 
sion is  made  to  water  at  all — at  Bethany  or  in  Bethany 
simply. 

1.  Such  crowds,  with  all  their  animals,  had  to  have,  must 
have  water.  Round-lake  Camp-meeting  is  not  there  be- 
cause of  convenient  places  to  immerse.  Camp-meetings, 
armies  encamped  for  a  jew  weeks,  have  to  have  much  water. 
Here  are  thousands  of  people  for  many  weeks,  some  months. 
Then  much  water  was  needed.     But, 

2.  That  much  water  had  to  be  running  water  by  the  law 
of  God.  We  cited  many  passages,  especially  Leviticus  xi, 
38,  showing  that  fountains — so  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  ren- 
der ^non — or  "gathering  together,  flow^ing  together"  of 
waters  coidd  not  be  defiled,  because  running  oif  constantly, 
and  fresh  clean  water  coming  into  their  place.  If  it  had 
been  even  a  convenient  lake  one  hundred  feet  square  and 
fifty  deep  in  the  middle,  the  moment  one  washed  in  it,  or 
an  unclean  animal,  person,  or  thing  fell  into  it  or  stepped 
into  it,  or  water  running  from  your  hands  or  face  after 
ablution  had  fallen  into  it,  it  could  not  be  used.  But  such 
crowds  had  to  have  water,  use  it  for  all  customary  pur- 
poses. Hence  the  running  waters  of  the  Jordan  were 
soueht. 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAYER.  67 

The  moment  the  flush  of  the  crowds  is  over  John 
leaves  the  hot,  low  region  of  lower  Jordan — the  lowest 
spot  above  water  on  our  globe,  deep  between  ranges  of 
hills,  in  about  the  latitude  of  Memphis,  Tennessee,  and  so 
intensely  hot  that  no  city  or  village  ever  was  built  upon  its 
banks  in  that  region — and  we  next  find  him  at  ^non  near 
Salim,  for  there  was  much  water  there,  not  deep;  the  word, 
polla  never  meant  deep,  but  "  many  waters  "  or  fountains 
is  far  more  correct,  as  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  have  it. 
There  was  enough  water  in  the  springs  of  those  mountain 
regions  for  the  numbers  coming  now  for  all  customary  pur- 
poses. Hence  we  have  here  Bible  reasons  for  all  we  see. 
They  baptized  in  ^non  with  water.  They  had  known  no 
other  mode  than  affusion  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  Cus- 
tom demands  its  acceptance  here  as  the  recognized  mode. 
The  primary  meaning  of  baptidzo  settles  it  as  the  mode. 
Instead  of  the  facts  forcing  us  from  the  primary  import 
here  they  all  point  to  it  as  the  only  mode.  And  if  we 
want  current  or  general  usage,  that  has  been  the  usage 
fifteen  hundred  years.  Nay,  the  Jews  of  those  days  tell 
us  how  much  water  was  necessary  to  their  ablutions  in 
general.  ''  They  allot  a  one-fourth  part  of  a  log  for  the 
washing  of  one  person's  hands,  it  may  be  of  two;  half  a 
log  for  three  or  four ;  a  whole  log  for  five  to  ten,  nay  to  one 
hundred,  with  this  provision,  saith  Rabbi  Jose,  that  the 
last  that  washed  hath  no  less  than  a  fourth  part  of  a  log 
for  himself  (Lightfoot,  Horse,  ii,  254).  A  log  is  five 
sixths  (I)  of  a  pint.  One  person  then  washed  with  near- 
ly one  fifth  of  a  pint.  Its  mode  is  told  us  by  Pocock 
also — aqua  effusa  erase,  with  water  j^oured  out  of  a  vessel, 
cup,  or  boAvl.     Leigh  gives  the  same  citation. 

So  well  was  it  known  that  the  baptisms  of  Mark  vii, 
4,  were  all  by  sprinkling,  that  the   learned  Greeks  who 


G8  BAPTISM. 

duplicated  manuscripts,  translate  baptisontai  in  that  place 
rantisontai,  '^sprinkle  themselves.'^  The  two  oldest  copies 
of  the  New  Testament  known  thus  translate  it.  Seven 
others  do  so.  The  reason  was,  that  was  a  mere  traditional 
obligation,  and  the  baptism  was  not  by  divine  authority. 
As  it  was  not  even  by  pouring  in  any  case — always  single 
in  mode,  and  regarded  by  Christians  as  only  a  mode,  they 
translate  it  sprinkle  themselves.    These  are  histoync  facts, 

WITHOUT  METAPHORS. 

Hence,  Theophylact,  the  Greek  father,  commenting  on 
Luke  xi,  38,  says,  ^'Deriding  their  foolish  customs,  I 
mean,  purifying  themselves  {katharidzesthai)  before  eat- 
ing." The  apostolic  constitution,  66,  alluding  to  the  Jews, 
says,  ^'  Unless  they  baptize  themselves  daily  they  do  not 
cat.  Still  further,  unless  they  purify  (katharosin)  with  ica- 
tcr  their  couches  and  seats  they  will  not  use  them  at  all.'' 
John  ii,  6,  tells  us  of  the  "water-pots,  after  the  manner 
of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,"  which  held  two  or  three 
firkins  apiece — i.  e.  six  gallons.  Could  people  immerse 
themselves  in  these  jars  of  six  gallons?  "  Benaiah  struck 
his  foot  against  a  dead  tortoise,  and  went  down  to  Siloam, 
where,  breaking  all  the  little  particles  of  hail,  he  baptized 
himself."'^  He  touched  a  dead  body ;  that  required  bap- 
tism. His  baptism  was  performed  by  means  of  melted 
liail — a  handful  of  water.  Hence,  Lightfoot,  than  whom 
we  have  no  higher  authority  on  such  subjects,  says,  allud- 
ing to  the  cases  of  Mark  vii,  4,  "  That  the  plunging  of 
the  whole  body  is  not  understood  here  may  be  sufficiently 
proved  hence ;  that  such  plunging  is  not  used  but  when 
pollution  is  contracted  from  the  more  principal  causes,t 
...   for  an  unclean  thing,   .   .  .   from  water  of  purifying, 

■--Lightfoot,  Horje  Heb.  et  Tal.,  vol.  3,  292,  we  tebal. 

t  And  this  only  "  laier,''  as  Pocock  and  Castell  say  and  show. 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAVER.  69 

etc."  (Rabbi  Solomon).*  ^' Baptismous  washing  applied  to 
all  these;  ...  in  respect  to  some  things,  of  washing 
only  (that  is,  pouring  water);  and  in  respect  of  others, 
of  sprinkling  only,  f 

THE    LAVER-WASH   AND    MAIMONIDES. 

Elder  Wilkes,  %  Dr.  Graves,  §  and  all  other  immersion- 
ists  have  relied  on  Maimonides,  above  all  authorities  to 
settle  the  issue  between  us  and  them  on  the  import  of 
wash  among  the  Jews.  They  cite  this  Rabbi  to  prove  that 
in  all  cases  wash  [i-achats]  involved  a  complete  immersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  water.  It  is  thus  cited:  ^'Wher- 
ever in  the  law  washing  [y^achats^  of  the  flesh  or  clothes 
is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  dipping  of  the 
whole  body  in  a  laver;  for  if  a  man  dips  himself  all 
over  [notice  that  wash  himself  all  over  is  the  word  in 
Maimonides]  except  the  tip  of  his  little  finger,  he  is  still 
in  his  uncleanness.^'  Not  unbaptized.  Below  they  quote 
again:  ^'A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dip  it  part 
by  part  is  pure."  I  have  the  original  of  this  by  the 
Rabbi. 

1.  Dr.  Graves,  as  always  he  seems  to  do,  blunders  as 
follows  in  introducing  M.,  thus :  "  But  I  want  to  know 
how  I  am  committed  to  the  theory  that  the  purifications 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  so  many  baptisms  ?  I  will  tell 
him  how  I  will  commit  myself  to  it.  In  every  case  of 
purification  when  taval  is  used,  I  will  say  that  Avas  by  the 

*  Lightfoot,  Hor£B  Heb.  et  Tal.,  vol.  2,  417,  418;  Sol.  in  Kelm., 
chap.  1. 

t  Ibid. 

J  Louisville  Debate,  563. 

§  Graves,  Carrolton  Debate,  pp.  113,  493;  Ingham's  Hand-book  on 
Baptism,  373. 


70  BAPTISM. 

immersion  of  the  whole  body,  hut  in  no  other  cases '^''^  (p. 
112,  113).  The  next  point  m  this  is  that  such  a  thing 
never  occurs  in  the  whole  Bible.  Taval  is  not  once  used 
for  purification,  or  to  accomplish  its  washing  in  a  single 
place  in  the  Bible.     But, 

2.  I  will  give  a  close  and  literal  translation  of  this 
Rabbi:  ^'Wherever  in  the  law  washing  [ixcchats']  occurs, 
cither  of  the  body  [bashaj  flesli]  or  of  the  garments,  from 
\inhi\  defilement,  nothing  else  is  to  be  understood  than  the 
Avashing  \tahelcili\  of  the  wdiole  body  at  a  fountain  [or  in 
conceptacle  of  water].  And  that  which  is  said  [here 
extra  defilement  is  described  and  omitted  here],  ^and  he 
shall  not  wash  [shatap1i\  his  hands  with  water,'  is  to  be 
understood  as  if  he  said  he  must  wash  [sJiitabidy  tebar\  his 
whole  body  with  water.  And  after  the  same  order  shall 
other  impurities  be  judged  of;  so  that  if  one  should  wash 
himself  all  over  \_kuIo~\,  except  the  extremity  of  his  little 
finger,  he  is  yet  in  liis  unclean ness." 

3.  This  was  w'ashing  for  extraordinary  defilement,  not 
ordinary  purification. 

4.  It  is  here  shown  even  by  that  version  of  it  that  one 
may  baptize  himself  without  washing  or  dipping  himself 
^•'all  over." 

5.  No  question  is  here  raised  by  the  Rabbi  about  or- 
dinary baptism  by  perfusion  or  dipping,  but  whether  for 
certain  kinds  of  pollution  "washing  all  over'' was  not 
necessary. 

6.  It  does  not  declare,  taking  their  version,  that  dip- 
ping is  necessary  to  baptism,  but  declares  if  any  part  in 
the  case  given  be  unwashed  he  is  still  unclean,  simply. 

*Had  Dr.  G.  cited  Kabbi  M.  in  the  actual  debate,  the  exposure 
would  have  followed  in  the  next  speech.  I  did  not  find  out  he  had 
slipped  it  and  his  authors  in  the  published  debate  till  my  eighth  speech, 
where  I  answer  it. 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAVEE.  71 

7.  It  admits  that  complete  immersion  is  not  required 
even  in  complete  defilement,  but  all  parts  must  he  touched 
by  the  water  in  such  cases.  ^^A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled, 
if  a  man  dip  it  part  by  part,  it  is  })ure."  Here  their  own 
citation  shows  that  bury,  cover,  immerse,  dip  is  no  essen- 
tial point.  First  one  part  of  the  bed  then  another  is  put 
into  the  water  for  cleansing.  This  is  not  immersion  in 
the  sense  Baptists,  etc.  mean — only  a  small  part  in  at  a 
time.     Do  Baptists  dip  a  subject  "part  by  part?'^ 

8.  Let  us  analyze  the  further  assumptions  of  immer- 
sionists  here. 

First.  The  word  used  for  this  wash  is  rachats,  which 
never  means  immerse  or  dip,  but  primarily  is  ^^to  pour 
out,  drip.-'^     See  the  chapter  on  Wash. 

Second.  Kabas  is  used  to  define  this  word,  which  no 
lexicon  ever  renders  by  dip  or  immerse. 

Third.  Shataph  figures  as  the  main  word  for  their 
^^dip,'^  ''immerse,'^  which  Gesenius  defines  by  a  "pouring 
rain,'^  Furst  by  a  "rain-gust,"  and  is  used  (1  Kings  xxii, 
38)  for  washing  the  chariot  at  the  pool.    Did  he  dip  it? 

Fourth.  Tabhal  is  used  several  times,  which  primarily 
means  "to  sprinkle,'^  and  all  the  greatest  authorities  tell 
us  is  used  where  the  ^'object  is  merely  touched  by  the 
liquid  in  part  or  in  whole."*     See  tabhal. 

9.  But  after  all  this,  Maimonides  lived  late  in  the 
twelfth  century  after  Christ,  was  an  Arab  converted  to 
Judaism  in  that  century.  He  is  just  eleven  hundred  years 
too  late  to  know  of  what  he  speaks  only  as  he  saw  it  in 
those  dark  ages.     Against  him  we   oppose  Onkelos  and 

*It  may  be  noted,  Dr.  Graves,  forgetting  himself,  introduces  Dr. 
Alting  (Debate,  p.  493)  as  "so  distinguished  a  scholar  "  on  Eabbi  Mai- 
monides's  point,  renders  it  "the  washing  of  the  whole  body  is  either 
added  or  understood."  Opera  Tern.  lY;  Com.  on  Epis.  Heb.  220.  That 
is  well,  and  refutes  his  assertions  about  Alting  and  Maimonides. 


72  BAPTISM. 

Jonathan  Ben  Uzzial,  who  lived  before  Christ  (see  them 
quoted  in  the  Laver),  and  Josephus,  who  lived  in  the  days 
of  Paul^  and  Pocock,  who  above  all  men  examined  Mai- 
monides,  had  all  that  Rabbi  had  and  infinitely  more  be- 
sides, Castell,  Lightfoot,  Wetstein,  Buxtorf,  Leigh,  Schind- 
Icr,  Stokius,  Kimchi,  and  a  host  of  others,  besides  the 
iacts  of  the  Bible  in  the  laver  baptisms.  Of  Maimonides, 
Dr.  Gale,  the  most  learned  of  all  Baptists  in  Rabbinic 
learning,  says,  "As  for  Maimonides  .  .  .  [he  was]  per- 
fectly besotted  in  the  idle  dreams  in  which  their  boasted 
knowledge  chiefly  consists,  and  consequently  even  he  can 
not  be  much  depended  on ;  besides  he  lived  not  above  six 
hundred  years  ago,  .  .  .  therefore  could  know  what  was 
])racticed  in  our  Savior^s  time  no  better  than  many  can 
now."  Reflections  on  Wall,  Wall,  vol.  2,  102,  ed.  1862,  in 
two  volumes. 

We  dare  not  lose  sight  of  the  symbolic  import  of 
baptism  if  we  wish  to  be  scriptural  in  its  use.  As  it  had 
always  been  symbolic  of  the  religious  innocence  or  quali- 
fication effected  in  the  sinner  or  priest  by  the  "  Avashing  of 
regeneration,"  the  spiritual  cleansing,  so  Ephesians  v,  25, 
26;  Titus  iii,  5;  Hebrews  x,  22,  show  that  in  the  latest 
apostolic  records  baptism  represented  the  spiritual  cleans- 
ing, was  symbolic  of  " sanctify,"  "cleanse,"  "wash."  But 
it  is  "with  jpure  water."  No  one  dipped  in  a  muddy  or 
filthy  jDond  or  creek  of  water  where  stagnation  and  accu- 
mulated filth  stain  the  water  is  baptized.  His  body  is 
not  "washed  with  pure  water."  As  this  is  spiritual  water 
alluded  to,  just  as  the  heart  sprinkled  in  the  same  verse 
is  spiritual,  yet  all  such  metaphorical  allusions  have  the 
literal  as  their  basis.  Hence  none  but  pure  water  can  con- 
stitute symbolic  baptism.  It  is  because  of  the  supersti- 
tious uses  baptism  has  been  devoted  to,  and  the  unscrip- 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAYER.  73 

tural  supposition  that  mode  is  the  baptism,  that  has  led 
to  dipping  in  filthy,  stenchy,  foul  holes  of  half  mud,  half 
filth,  etc.  that  utterly  disgraces  the  rite  and  obscures  its 
beauty. 

If  any  one  doubts  the  pure  symbolic  import  of  baptism 
let  him  examine  in  full  its  origin. 

1.  Exodus  xxix,  4-6;  xxx,  18-22;  Leviticus  viii,  4-6; 
Numbers  viii,  7. 

2.  The  allusions  to  it  in  the  Prophets:  Psalm  li, 
1-10;  Isaiah  i,  16;  iv,  4;  xliv,  3;  Ezekiel  xvi,  9;  xxxvi, 
25,  26. 

3.  John's  baptism  (John  iii,  23-26),  where  it  was  a  "  pu- 
rifying,''  and  translated  in  the  old  ^thiopic  and  other 
ancient  versions  ^^  baptism '^  (Matt,  iii,  11)  ^Svith  water 
unto  {eis)  repentance." 

4.  The  allusions  recited  above.  Acts  xxii,  16,  compared 
with  ix,  18,  19,  "Be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins  in 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord'' — the  six  versions  made 
before  James's  all  thus  read.  Eph.  v,  26;  Titus  iii,  5; 
Heb.  X,  22. 

5.  After  John  was  imprisoned  Christ  called  his  apostles. 
Mark  i,  1-4,  16-20;  Luke  iv  entire;  then  v,  2-12,  and  vi, 
12-14;  Matt,  ix,  9,  etc.  From  that  day  till  after  his  death 
Christ  does  not  have  any  one  baptized,  does  not  name 
Christian  baptism  to  any  one  till  just  before  he  ascended 
(Matt,  xxviii,  18,  19);  and  hence  as  John's  baptism  was 
only  symbolic  of  the  Spirit's  cleansing,  it  follows  it  is 
only  so  still,  as  the  commission  made  no  limitation  nor 
gave  it  any  new  force  save  the  naming  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit. 

6.  The  apocryphal  use  is  cleanse,  and  nothing  more. 
Judith  xii,  7 ;  Eccles.  xxxiv,  25  :  Washeth — baptizes — from 
a  dead  body,  "  What  is  he  profited  by  his  cleansing  if  ho 


74  BAPTISM. 

touch  it  again  ? "  So  Tobit  ii,  5 :  Louo,  wash,  after  touch- 
ing a  dead  body. 

7.  As  before  shown,  the  real  import  and  design  of  any 
rite  is  always  involved  in  the  ground-form,  or  elements 
used,  and  if  a  mere  action  involving  not  external  elements, 
then  in  the  proper  import  of  the  word  used,  as  circum- 
cision. 

Hence  in  the  lamb  and  its  blood  is  found  the  true  sym- 
bolism of  the  Passover,  pointing  to  Christ  our  Passover. 

In  the  day  God  rested  from  labor  is  the  ground  of 
import  to  our  Sabbath. 

In  the  meaning  of  circumcision  in  the  Hebrew,  cut  off, 
separate,  is  the  symbolism  of  circumcision — the  heart  sep- 
arated from  sin  (Col.  ii,  12;  Rom.  ii,  28,  29),  and  the  men, 
as  Abraham,  the  Jews,  etc.,  separated  to  themselves. 

Hence  among  all  nations  on  earth  in  all  ages  water 
represents  cleansing  and  innocence  in  its  symbolism.  It 
never  symbolizes  death,  but  represents  just  the  reverse — 
life  constantly.  It  never  represents  burial  nor  resurrec- 
tion. All  that  baptism  was  ever  designed  to  represent  is 
seen  in  its  recognized  import. 

We  have  seen  that  for  fifteen  hundred  years  baptism, 
from  its  institution  as  a  rite  till  Christ  came,  was  by  affu- 
sion in  all  cases.  That  in  all  cases  it  was  symbolic 
also.  We  will  see  in  the  future  that  the  Jews  constantly 
used  words  that  meant  both  pour  and  sprinkle — the  same 
word  or  words.  The  plentiful  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit 
prophesied  of  so  often  may  have  led  the  apostles  to  the 
preference  they  give  to  jwur  over  sprinkle.  Hence  we 
may  justly  suppose  pouring  became  their  favorite  mode 
over  sprinkling.  It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  the 
Jews  who  believed  in  Christ  and  who,  even  late  in  the 
apostolic  age,  like  Paul,  kept  ^'the  purifying  of  the  Jews" 


BAPTISM  OUT  OF  THE  LAVER.  75 

(Acts  xxiv,  18;  John  ii,  6),  as  he  was  ''purified  in  the 
temple/^  were  immersed  for  baptism  when  affusion  had 
been  the  universal  practice  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 
Unless  some  fact  shows  a  change  we  are  to  suppose  the 
old  practice  was  continued.  Jesus  gave  the  commission 
(Matt,  xxviii,  18,  19,  20)  under  which  we  today  act — dis- 
ciple all  nations,  all  the  gentiles,  ''baptizing  them,''  etc. 
He  does  not  say  "  with  water,''  for  it  had  been  used  fifteen 
hundred  years — was  well  understood.  He  makes  no  change 
in  its  design,  mode,  purport.  The  only  modification  given 
was,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit."  Hence  the  long-established  mode  was 
continued. 


76  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Baptism — Revival  of  Learning — Classics — 
Lexicons. 

From  the  dawning  of  the  Reformation,  1520-1522,  till 
the  present  time  there  has  been  a  sad  and  almost  ruin- 
ous war  of  words  on  the  question  of  how  much  water  is 
required  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  As  the 
immersionist  side  was  espoused  in  the  main  by  very  igno- 
rant and  fanatical  and  even  turbulent  men  at  first,  and 
the  church  was  settled  by  the  state,  scholars  took  little  or 
no  interest  in  the  controversy.  Being  satisfied  that  affu- 
sion was  scriptural  they  devoted  their  attention  to  other 
and  (to  them)  more  interesting  matters.  Not  until  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  did  any  eminent  scholar 
defend  the  extreme  views  of  the  anti-pedobaptists.  The 
pedobaptists  devoted  all  their  attention,  so  far  as  baptism 
interested  them,  to  a  defense  of  infant  baptism,  especially 
from  the  historic  standpoint. 

In  England  since  the  days  of  Dr.  Gale,  and  more  re- 
cently Dr.  Carson;  and  in  the  United  States,  especially 
within  the  last  forty  years,  it  has  become  the  most  ab- 
sorbing topic  in  the  catalogue  of  religious  dogmas.  In 
Germany  it  has  never  excited  any  attention  among  the 
learned  worthy  of  notice. 

The  parties  favoring  affusion  labored  under  a  great 
disadvantage  by  allowing  both  sides  to  adhere  to  a  course 
of  argumentation    destitute    of,  and   antagonistic    to,  all 


EEVIVAL    OF    LEARNING.  i( 

sound  and  recognized  rules  and  laws  of  philology.  AYord- 
building,  root-derivation^  and  all  the  laws  by  which  schol- 
ars arrive  at  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  force  and  mean- 
ing of  words  were  ignored,  and  a  wholly  unscientific 
method  persued.  The  immersionists  and  many  pedobap- 
tists  treated  the  subject  as  if  their  interpretation  of  Ro- 
mans vi,  3,  4;  Colossians  ii,  11,  12,  settled  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  and  so  philology  was  ignored.  Had  Frank- 
lin, Morse,  Galileo,  Kepler,  Newton,  and  Bacon  investi- 
gated the  phenomena  of  nature  from  such  unscientific 
standpoints  the  world  would  still  be  in  profound  ignorance 
of  electricity,  philosophy,  and  astronomy. 

The  great  body  of  pedobaptists  Avho  favor  immersion, 
such  as  Selden,  Wall,  and  many  others,  though  admitting 
the  scripturalness  of  affusion,  assumed  that  Jewish  prose- 
lyte baptism  was  practiced  before  and  in  the  apostles'  days. 
Baptist  w^riters  contend  that  it  was  a  century  or  more,  not 
to  say  three  or  four  centuries,  later  than  the  apostolic  age. 
The  Jews  of  the  Middle  Ages  baptized  and  still  baptize 
gentile  proselytes  generally  by  immerson.  Hence  Selden, 
Wall,  and  other  pedobaptists  who  favor  immersion  do  so 
almost  exclusively  in  the  belief  that  the  Jewish  j^i'oselyte 
immersion  of  the  fourth  century  a.d.  was  apostolic  in  its 
date  and  also  perpetuated  by  the  apostles.  It  is  not  fair  to 
take  the  evidence  of  these  men  in  favor  of  immersion,  as 
all  Baptists  do,  and  yet  utterly  repudiate  the  only  ground 
and  evidence  that  these  distinguished  scholars  relied  on  as 
furnishing  the  proofs  of  immersion. 

Another  fact  has  misled  many  and  puzzled  not  a  few. 
The  allusions  to  the  Spirit  of  God  moving  upon  the  Ava- 
ters;  hovering  over  the  waters;  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
upon  the  flood,  etc.  induced  the  settled  conviction  among 
many  fathers,  such  as  Tertullian,  Origcn,  and  others,  that 


78  BAPTISM. 

the  Spirit  of  God  imparted  a  divine  efficacy  and  virtue  to 
the  water,  by  which  those  who  received  baptism  had  the 
grace  of  God  imbibed  from  the  water.  It  had  a  ^^  med- 
ical virtue"  that  sanctified  the  nature  of  man.  The  Jews 
superstitiously  fell  into  the  same  error  on  the  approach  of 
the  Dark  Ages,  and  hence  they  would  either  merse  the 
whole  body  under  the  water,  or  mersed  the  person  waist 
or  neck  deep;  both  were  practiced  to  imbibe  the  saving 
grace,  while  the  baptismal  water  was  poured  upon  the 
head.  The  many  ancient  pictures  representing  Christ  and 
others  as  baptized  standing  in  Jordan  are  illustrations. 
These  superstitions  led  to  the  more  general  practice  of 
immersion  in  the  Dark  Ages.  The  Latin  and  Greek  fa- 
thers practiced  trine-immersions — ^Hhree  dips  for  one  bap- 
tism"— for  many  centuries.  A  single  dip  for  baptism  was 
wholly  unknown  for  the  first  three  centuries  of  tlie  church 
after  Christ.  Hence  immersion  was  tlic  prevailing,  almost 
universal  mode  in  Europe  when  learning  was  revived  in 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.  It  is  only  within 
the  last  forty  years  that  the  Indo-European  languages, 
Greek,  Latin,  etc.,  have  been  studied  from  scientific  stand- 
points, and  those  great  laws  and  affinities  of  language 
discovered  that  underlie  a  correct  knowledge  of  those 
languages.  So  of  the  Hebrew,  though  in  the  seventeenth 
century  Hebrew  and  Syriac  advanced  far  beyond  Greek, 
but  retrograded  again. 

After  Greek  learning  was  lost  in  the  western  part  of 
Europe,  for  some  seven  centuries  it  remained  unknown, 
unread  throughout  Germany,  England,  France,  Italy,  etc. 
Not  until  the  fall  of  Constantinople  under  the  Turks,  May 
29,  1453,  was  it  revived.  The  Vatican  library  was  not 
founded  till  under  Nicholas  Y,  1447.  In  1445  it  con- 
tained only  five  thousand  volumes.    Wycliffe's  (1382)  and 


CLASSICS.  79 

the  German  versions  (1460-1470)  were  from  the  Vulgate 
Latin.      They  knew  nothing  about  Greek. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  only  four 
classical  manuscripts  were  found  in  the  Library  of  Paris, 
and  they  were  Latin.  The  Academical  Library  of  Oxford 
in  the  year  1300  a.d.  consisted  of  a  few  tracts.  Greek  was 
not  introduced  at  Oxford  nor  in  England  till  a.d.  1485 
to  1509.*  It  was  not  introduced  in  France  till  1458  nor 
in  Germany  till  1471.  Even  Latin  was  so  little  known 
in  classical  forms  that  in  1254  the  names  of  Yirgil  and 
Cicero  were  unknown  in  Italy  and  France.  In  1513  Gar- 
land said  Greek  could  not  be  read  in  France.  The  first 
effort  to  teach  Greek  in  England  was  under  Grocyn  (1485- 
1519).  The  first  Greek  grammar  published  (Lascaris's)  in 
France  in  1476.  The  first  lexicon  (Craston's)  in  France 
in  1480 — "a  very  imperfect  vocabulary." f  ^^For  many 
years"  this  ^'continued  to  be  the  oyily  assistance  of  the 
kind  to  which  a  student  could  have  recourse.  The  author 
was  an  Italian."  J 

In  1521  the  first  Greek  characters  appear  in  England 
in  a  book  at  Cambridge.  §  In  1533  ^'some  Englishmen 
began  to  aifect  a  knowledge  of  Greek."  ||  In  Scotland  it 
was  not  yet  pretended,  but  began  to  be  studied  in  1534. 
Not  till  1550  was  a  Greek  lexicon  or  grammar  printed  in 
England.  1[  The  first  editions  of  Greek  authors  were 
very  defective,  and  generally  later  writers,  such  as  ^lian, 
Epictetus,  Plutarch,  or  mere  selections  of  Hesiod,  etc., 
up  to  1523.  The  Etymologicum  3Iagnum  of  Phavorinus, 
whose  real  name  was  Guarino,  published  at  Rome  in  1523, 
was  of  some  importance,  while   no   lexicon  but  the  very 

*-Hallam,  Middle  Ages,  548.        t  Hist.  Lit.,  by  Hallam,  vol.  1,  130. 
t  Ibid.  §  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  182,  by  Hallam. 

II  Ibid.  183.  ^  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  184,  Hallam. 


80  BAPTISM. 

defective  one  of  Crastoii  had  been  printed.'^*  It  is  only 
a  compilation. 

Erasmus  taught  Greek  at  Cambridge  where  Tyndale, 
the  first  pretending  translator  of  the  Greek  Testament 
into  English,  studied  (1503-1514).  These  wretched  and 
defective  works  were  their  only  sources  of  information — 
Craston\s  their  only  lexicon.  Vatable  (Vatabulus)  was 
the  first  Hebrew  professor  in  France  (1534  to  1545).  He, 
in  infancy  of  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  Western  Europe,  is 
often  paraded  by  immersionists  as  a  great  authority,  even 
by  such  men  as  Gale,  Ingham,  etc. 

With  these  encumbrances  we  are  surprised  at  what  Tyn- 
dale, Calvin,  Luther,  and  others  accomplished;  but  all  can 
see  what  a  miserable  subterfuge  it  is  to  quote  the  opinions 
of  these  men  as  an  ultimate  authority,  or  on  a  primary 
meaning  on  baptidzo  and  bapto,  when,  however  gigantic 
their  intellects,  yet  the  age ;  the  very  defective  aids ;  the 
non-appearance  as  yet  of  the  best  Greek  writers  ;  the  prev- 
alence of  the  later  and  defective  Greek  writers  over  the 
earlier  and  better,  as  far  as  publications  went,  all  show 
that  verbal  criticism  was  sadly  defective  and  philology 
unknown.  Of  Luther,  the  Hebrew  lexicographer  ^^  Simon 
has  charged  him  with  ignorance  of  Hebrew,  and  when  we 
consider  how  late  he  came  to  the  study  of  either  that  or  the 
Greek  language,  and  the  multiplicity  of  his  employments, 
it  may  be  believed  that  his  knowledge  of  them  vfdi^i  far  from 
extensive.''^  Eichorn  accounts  for  it  "in  the  lamentable  de- 
ficiency of  subsidiary  means  in  that  age'^  (iii,  317).  Yet 
"  from  this  (Luther's)  translation,  however,  and  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  the  English  one  of  Tyndale  and  Coverdale, 
published  in  1535  or  1536,  is  wholly  taken.'' f 

^Ibid.  177. 

tHallam,  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  201;  Simon,  Hist.  Critique,  V.  T.,  p.  432; 
Andres  XIX,  169. 


REVIVAL    OF    LEAIIXIXG.  81 

Such  were  the  materials  on  which  James's  version  is 
wholly  based,  such  the  aids  of  that  age.  Scotus,  Aquinas, 
etc.,  also  are  paraded  to  decide  baptidzo  by  Booth,  Ing- 
ham, etc.,  when  they  never  saw  a  Greek  alphabet  in  their 
lives !  Such  is  the  treatment  this  question  has  received 
ever  since  it  was  mooted  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Up  to 
1550  "  no  Greek  grammars  or  lexicons  were  yet  printed 
in  England  "  (Hallam).^  They  were  yet  dependent  mainly 
on  such  writers  as  Craston,  Aldus,  etc.;  those  works  "gen- 
erally very  defective  through  the  slight  knowledge  of  the 
language  that  even  the  best  scholars  then  possessed. ^'f  We 
ask  now,  of  what  value  are  the  opinions  of  such  author- 
ities in  verbal  criticism  as  compared  with  those  that  arc  the 
result  of  a  scientific  and  exhaustive  examination  of  the 
facts  involved?  We  constantly  see  the  men  who  flourished 
in  and  about  those  times,  Beza,  Casaubon,  Calvin,  Zwingle, 
Luther,  paraded  on  this  question,  with  hosts  of  far  inferior 
ones,  when  on  such  matters  their  opinions  are  of  no  more 
value  than  they  would  be  on  astronomy  at  that  time.  Many 
great  and  essential  facts  and  principles  in  language,  as  essen- 
tial to  accuracy  in  philology  as  the  microscope,  telescope, 
and  spectroscope  are  to  science  now,  were  wholly  un- 
known to  that  age.  Not  till  after  Tyndale's  New  Testa- 
ment Avas  printed  (1526),  based  on  Luther's  (1522),  did  the 
first  effort  at  real  lexicography  appear — the  Commentaril 
Linguce  Grcecce,  Paris,  1529.  "  This  great  work  of  Bud- 
dseus  has  been  the  text-book  and  common  storehouse  of 
succeeding  lexicographers  .  .  .  His  authorities  and  illus- 
trations are  chiefly  drawn  from  the  prose  writers  of  Greece, 
the  historians,  orators,  and  fathers.  \_Note  that.']  With 
the  poets  he  seems  to  have  had  a  less  intimate  acquaintance '' 
(Hallara.)I     Yet  this  very  class,  poets,  are   the   first  by 

-  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  184.  t  Hallam,  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  248. 

t  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  178. 

6 


<S2  BAPTISM. 

long  centuries  that  use  baj}to  or  bajytidzo,  from  wliom  we 
could  best  trace  its  primary  meaning,  being  the  first  by 
many  centuries  that  can  give  us  light  here.  Only  on 
words  of  jurisprudence,  legal  terms,  did  Buddseus  bestow 
pains  (Hallam).  Hence  a  lexicon  as  late  as  1537  abounds 
'^  in  faults  and  inaccuracies  of  every  description  ^'  {ibid^ 
178).  In  1562  appeared  Robert  Constantine's  Greek  lex- 
icon  at  Basle.  Scaliger  speaks  of  it  and  its  author  ''  in  a 
disparaging  tone  "  (Hallam).  Yet  he  may  have  underrated 
it.  The  Quarterly  Review  observes,  by  one  of  its  modern 
critics,  that  ^'  a  very  great  proportion  of  the  explanations 
and  authorities  in  Stephens's  Thesaurus  are  borrowed  from 
it'^  (Hallam).*  As  this  is  the  lexicon  whence  so  many 
others  came  to  the  world,  its  make-up  is  all  important.  Of 
Constantine's  lexicon  it  is  added,  ''The  principal  defects 
are,  first,  the  confused  and  ill-digested  arrangement  of  the 
interpretation  of  words ;  and  secondly,  the  absence  of  all 
distinction  between  primitives  and  derivatives.^^  He  was 
assisted  by  H.  Stephanus.  Says  Hallam,  after  Constan- 
tine's lexicon  was  improved,  1591, ''  It  is  extremely  defective 
and /i^//  of  errors.'^j  Yet  Stephanus  transfers  ''a  very 
great  proportion  of  the  explanations  and  authorities''  of 
this  defective  work  to  his  own  great  work. 

It  was  only  in  this  way  he  could  compile  so  enormous 
a  folio  work  (now  with  additions  making  ten  folio  vol- 
umes)  in   twelve  years.      Buxtorf  spent   thirty  years   on 

*  Hist.  Lit.,  I,  250. 

t  Ibid.  250.  Since  writing  the  above  I  Lave  secured  Max  Muller's 
works,  and  in  vol.  4,  Chips  from  a  German  "Workshop,  p.  209,  ed.  187(3, 
where  he  says,  "Even  more  pernicious  to  the  growth  of  sound  ideas 
was  the  study  of  etymology,  as  formerly  carried  on  in  schools  and  uni- 
versities. Every  thing  here  was  left  to  chance  or  to  authority,  and  it  was 
not  unusual  that  two  or  three  etymologies  of  the  same  word  had  to  be 
learnt,  as  if  the  same  word  might  have  had  more  than  one  parent." 
Gesenius  is  an  eminent  example  of  this  error. 


REVIVAL    OF    LEARXIXG.  -  83 

one  lexicon,  only  one  folio  volume,  and  Castell's  lexicon 
aggregates  three  hundred  years'  labor,  two  folio  volumes. 
Stephen's  Thesaurus  (lexicon)  appeared  in  1572.  Of  it 
Hallam  says  truly  (for  his  day,  thirty  to  forty  years  ago), 
it  ''is  still  the  s'mgle  Greek  lexicon;  one  which  some  have 
ventured  to  abridge  or  enlarge,  but  none  have  presumed 
to  supersede/'  Scapula  published  an  abridgment  of  Stc- 
phanus  in  1579.  After  this  age  ''for  another  century 
mankind  was  content,  in  respect  to  Greek  philology,  to 
live  on  the  accumulations  of  the  sixteenth;  and  it  was  not 
till  after  so  long  a  period  had  elapsed  that  new  scholars 
arose,  more  exact,  more  philosophical,  more  acute,"  etc. 
(Hallam).*  Hedericus,  Pasor,  Schrevelius,  etc.  are  only 
abridgments,  while  Donnegan,  Dnnbar  (first  edition),  and 
many  others  are  mere  English  translations  and  abridg- 
ments. Not  till  Schneider,  Passow,  Rost,  etc.,  in  the  past 
fifty  years,  was  there  a  real  advance  made  in  Greek  lexi- 
cography. Passow  made  the  first  real  advance  toward 
science  and  accuracy.  As  Tyndale  and  Luther  had  to  rest 
on  such  miserable  help,  and  really,  mainly,  simply  trans- 
lated the  Vulgate  Latin,  not  the  Greek,  so  James's  trans- 
lators adopted  theirs  Avith  but  little  change,  none  on  bap- 
tism, and  had  to  rely  on  these  helps  alone.  Hence  they 
adhere  so  constantly  to  the  Latin  Vulgate.  All  these 
lexicons  were  for  classic  Greek,  not  a  New  Testament  lex- 
icon was  yet  produced.  Indeed  they  knew  not  enough 
about  Greek  to  know  the  facts  now  universally  conceded, 
that  the  difference  in  restrictively  religious  words  and 
those  applied  to  ordinances  is  very  great.  Comparative 
philology  is  w^holly  a  modern  science.  The  discoveries  of 
Grimm,  Bopp,  Max  Mliller,  in  philology  generally  (vol. 
iv,  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  etc.) ;  the  labors  o£ 
■^^Hist.  Lit.,  I,  261. 


8  4  BAPTISM. 

Fiirst,  Ewald,  Hupfeld,  Delitzch,  in  Semitic  tongues; 
Freund,  Schiller,  etc.,  in  Latin;  as  >yell  as  Passow,  Kiih- 
ner,  Rost,  Palm,  Pape,  in  Greek,  have  advanced  these 
departments  immensely,  and  the  work  is  only  fairly 
begun. 

To  return  now :  The  lexicography  of  the  past  centu- 
ries, as  well  as  all  the  English  versions,  were  wholly  by 
IMMERSIONISTS — Called  dipping  then — under  immersion 
INFLUENCES  AND  LATVS.  Yet  havc  they  not  filled  the 
land  with  the  cry  of  pedobaptist  lexicons,  concessions,  ver- 
sions, as  if  they  were  affusionists  ? 

Dr.  Conant,  Baptist  (Baptizein,  p.  138-9),  quotes  the 
statutes  of  England  from  Edward  VI  (1549)  to  Charles 
IT  (1662)  for  dipping  as  the  law,  save  in  cases  where  a 
physician  certified  that  the  child  was  too  delicate  to  be 
dipped.  A.  Campbell  quotes  the  same  (Ch.  Baptism,  pp. 
192-200).  See  Louisville  Debate,  pp.  522-3,  and  M.  Stuart 
on  Baptism,  pp.  152-3,  and  Introduction  by  J.  R.  Graves, 
p.  24,  where  it  is  proved  '4hat  the  English  Church  prac- 
ticed immersion  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  when  a  change  to  the  method  of  sprinkling  grad- 
ually took  place.^'  But  James^s  version  followed  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  both  followed  Tyndale's,  on  baptism  in 
New  Testament.  It  is  a  reprint  of  that  of  1526  in  these 
respects.  At  this  time  all  agree  no  change  in  favor  of 
sprinkling  had  been  thought  of  in  England  or  France. 
Tyndale  was  an  out-and-out  immersionist,  as  Graves, 
Conant,  A.  Campbell,  etc.  prove.  A.  Campbell  quotes 
him  to  this  eifect,  as  well  as  Conant  (Baptism,  p.  140),  and 
adds,  ^^The  translators  of  the  common  version  were  all, 
or  nearly  all,  genuine  Episcopalians,  and  at  the  very  time 
they  made  the  version  were  accustomed  to  use  a  liturgy 
which  made  it  the  minister's  duty,  in  the  sacrament  of 


REVIVAL    OF    LEAKXIXG.  8o 

baptism,  'to  take  the  child  and  dip  it  in  the  water ^  con- 
tained in  the  font.  I  have  seen  copies  of  James's  version, 
printed  in  1611,  which  contain  the  Psalms  and  service 
of  the  church,  in  which  frequent  allusions  are  made  to 
immersion,  all  indicative  of  the  fact  that  it  was  then 
[1607-1611]  regarded  as  the  primitive  and  proper  bap- 
tism; consequently,  these  translators  accepted  the  king's 
appointment  and  restrictions,  to  retain  baptize  and  bap- 
tism rather  than  translate  them,*  and  on  no  occasion 
favored  the  innovation  of  sprinkling  by  any  rendering  or 
note  marginal  in  that  translation." 

Benedict,  the  great  Baptist  historian,  quotes  Ivimey's 
History  of  English  Baptists  (vol.  1,  pp.  138-140)  thus  of 
the  years  1616  to  1633,  in  England:  ^^ Immersion  being 
incontrovertibly  the  universal  practice  in  England  at  that 
time,"  etc.  (p.  337).  I  presume  this  does  not  mean  that 
individuals  at  that  time  were  not  baptized  by  pouring  at 
least,  but  that  immersion  was  practiced  over  all  the  king- 
dom— was  general.  It  agrees  with  the  facts  of  Wall  (vol. 
2,  p.  581)  and  note  there  as  to  Dr.  Whittaker's  influence, 
beginning  1624. 

Since  the  above  was  wM'itten  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p. 
425)  quotes  Wall,  part  2,  chap.  9,  and  indorses  it  as  say- 
ing, "As  for  sprinkling,  properly  called,  it  seems  it  was  at 
1645  just  then  beginning  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must 
have  begun  in  the  disorderly  times  after  1641,  for  Mr. 
Blake,  who  lived  in  England  in  1644,  had  never  used  it 
nor  seen  it  used.'^    Notice  now  the  clearly-made-out  facts : 

1.  James's  version,  so  far  as  baptism  is  concerned,  is 
Tyndale's,  1526 — a  real  immersionist. 

*  There  is  no  special  restriction  as  to  baptism  in  his  instructions. 
The  fact  that  all  versions  in  kindred  tongues,  from  the  Itala,  Jerome, 
Wycliffe,  Tyndale,  Coverdale  to  James's  always  anglicised  the  word 
v/as  suificient  reason  for  it. 


86  BAPTISM. 

2.  Not  till  after  the  appearance  of  Dr.  Whittaker's 
work  (1624),  fourteen  years  after  James's  version  was 
completed  and  thirteen  years  after  it  was  published  (1611), 
did  any  one  advocate  sprinkling. 

3.  As  late  as  1645  sprinkling  was  only  beginning  to  be 
practiced. 

4.  Still  as  late  as  1662  the  civil  statutes  re-enacted  dip- 
ping, and  Wesley,  as  a  British  subject  and  chaplain  to 
Governor  Oglethorpe,  as  late  as  1736  rigidly  adhered  to  it 
in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Parker's  child,  Georgia  being  then  a 
British  colony. 

5.  James's  translators  were  educated  by  immersionists 
altogether,  used  lexicons  and  notes  wholly  steeped  in  im- 
mersion prejudices,  under  immersion  laws.     Hence,  truly, 

6.  They  never  favored  sprinkling  "by  any  rendering." 
No,  they  translate  it  that  Christ  went  '^straightway  up  out 
of  the  water '^  in  utter  violation  of  all  Greek  usage,  and 
where  in  the  Pentateuch  it  is  "ivash  with  water"  repeatedly 
they  render  it  "bathe  in  water,"  in  utter  contempt  of  the 
Greek,  Hebrew,  and  common  sense,  as  if  it  were  a  medical 
and  not  a  religious  rite,  cleansing,  washing,  bathing  not 
being  the  object. 

Buddieus  never  studied  the  older  and  purer  Greek  writ- 
ers at  all.  He  only  studied  closely  the  law-terms  of  any. 
His  is  the  great  lexicon  till  Stephanus.  He  completes  his 
enormous  work  in  twelve  years;  copies  large  parts  from 
Constantine,  a  work  full  of  defects,  blunders,  errors.  Many 
of  the  best  Greek  writers  were  not  accessible,  not  edited 
yet  or  convenient  to  him.  They  came  to  their  work  and 
to  baptidzo  not  as  scientists,  not  as  philologists  should,  but 
crammed  with  superstitious  ideas  of  the  "  magical  effect  of 
baptism,"  looking  at  it  largely  as  settled  by  ecclesiastics, 
carrying  thus  the  huge  bulk  of  the  rubbish  of  the  accumu- 


REVIVAL    OF    LEARNING.  87 

lating  superstitions  of  a  thousand  years.  Yefc  they  are 
paraded  as  if  prejudiced  in  favor  of  affusionistsf  They 
<lid  the  best  they  could.  They  are  a  marvel  of  success, 
considering  their  age  and  chances.  On  baptidzo  or  bapto 
Buddseus  and  Stephanus  fall  hundreds  of  years  short  of 
the  earlier  or  literal  earlier  use  of  these  words.  This  will 
come  up  in  due  time.  The  ignorance,  the  prejudices  of 
centuries  had  to  be  overcome.  All  the  talk  of  Casaubon, 
Beza,  Suicer,  Witsius,  Vossius,  etc.,  etc.  about  originals, 
etc.  is  based  on  the  conceits  of  those  times,  overthrown 
by  all  parties  since  and  rejected  by  all  men.  Yet  these 
critics  and  lexicons  are  far  more  consistent  and  reliable 
than  many  such  men  as  Lange,  Conybeare  and  Howson, 
etc.,  who  assume  that  Paul  (Rom.  vi,  3,  4)  dogmatically 
settles  a  question  of  philology  and  scienGe.  But  with  all 
their  prejudices  and  unripened  knowledge  of  language,  and 
unscientific  processes,  they  overwhelmingly  sustain  our  po- 
sition, as  will  be  shown  when  we  quote  them.  We  charge 
not  them  with  willful  conduct.  Prejudices  are  often  honest, 
and  superstition  is  both  sincere  and  terribly  in  earnest  very 
often.  The  facts  they  saw  were  enough  to  convince  them, 
and  the  facts  were  valuable  as  far  as  they  went;  but  in  ac- 
counting for  the  facts  they  were  like  the  old  astronomers — 
wild  as  to  the  causes,  the  laws  of  language. 


88  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Changes  in  Meaning — Classic  and  New  Testament 
Greek — Primary  and  Derived  Meanings. 

The  way  in  which  classic  Greek  has  been  used  in  this 
controversy  is  not  only  unscientific  and  onesided,  but 
persistently  self-contradictory,  as  all  will  see.  Were  the 
parties  appealing  to  it  as  decisive  of  the  controversy  con- 
sistent, they  would  abide  their  own  decisions.  Not  one 
of  them  has  ever  done  so;  not  one  ever  will  do  so. 
While  classic  Greek  may  and  will  prove  a  great  help  in 
determining  the  philology  of  the  w^ord,  the  action,  the  meari- 
ing  of  the  word  as  a  secular  word,  it  can  not  aid  at  all  in 
determining  the  religious  force  and  application  of  baptidzo 
for  reasons  that  will  soon  be  presented.  We  will  soon  see 
Conant,  Cox,  Ingham,  Carson,  A.  Campbell,  Halley,  Mell, 
Gale,  the  whole  body  of  immersionists,  shrinking  from 
their  classic  proofs  when  they  come  to  the  New  Testament. 
Their  ^'drench,^^  ^-sink,"  ^' overflow,'^  ''overwhelm,"  "in- 
toxicate,'' ''make  drunk,"  "burden  with  taxes,"  "soaked," 
all  give  way.  If  classic  Greek  settles  its  use,  why  abandon 
these  in  carrying  it  into  the  New  Testament?  As  for  our- 
selves, we  are  perfectly  willing  to  settle  the  force  of  the 
action  of  haptldzo  by  an  appeal  to  classic  Greek,  but  for 
its  use  and  design  as  a  religious  ordinance  classic  Greek 
affords  no  help,  gives  no  light. 

Let  us  see  the  consistency  of  the  other  side.     Of  sixty- 
three  occurrences  in  consecutive  order  Dr.  Conant  renders 


CHANGES    IN    MEANING.  89 

baptidzo  '^  whelm ''  and  ''  overwhelm  "  fifty -three  times, 
^Mmmerse'^  ten  times.  This  sheds  much  light  on  the  sub- 
ject and  will  aid  in  discovering  the  primary  meaning  of  tlie 
word.     And  that  is  the  main  aid  afforded  by  classic  Greek. 

Granting,  as  we  do,  that  ^^  whehii,''  '^  overwhelm  ^^  are 
the  prevailing  meanings  of  the  word  in  certain  periods, 
whence  sinking  is  the  result,  hence  to  sink  {immerse)]  this 
clearly  shows  that  immerse  is  derivative.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  we  have  Greek  literature  centuries  before 
we  have  baptidzo.  We  have  hapto,  its  root,  centuries  prior 
to  baptidzo.  Both  words  may  have  been  in  use  centuries 
in  Avorks  that  never  have  reached  the  days  of  book  pub- 
lishing or  printing.  Words  are  always  changing  their 
meanings.  W^ho  can  tell  what  changes  these  words  have 
undergone  during  those  centuries?  We  have  one  way  of 
learning — the  laws  of  philology  alone  affording  any  help. 
The  great  body  of  words  in  all  our  European  and  Asiatic 
tongues  so  far  as  known  are  perpetually  changing. 

We  must  notice  these  two  facts,  viz.  that,  first,  words 
constantly  change  their  meanings,  and  second,  the  differ- 
ence between  classic  and  biblical  usage.  Noah  Webster 
says,  ^^  Words  which  have  been  long  retained  have  often 
lost  tlieir  old  meanings  and  taken  on  new  ones.  In  the 
combination  and  construction  of  words,  in  phrase  and 
idiom,  the  changes  have  yet  been  more  numerous.  .  .  . 
These  differences  are  mainly  lexical  and  rhetorical  rather 
than  grammatical.^^*  Again,  ''  We  must  have  respect  chiefly 

"■•■  N.  Webster's  Brief  Hist.  Lang.,  Diet.,  p.  xsvii,  ed.  1865.  Those  who 
wish  to  examine  the  subject  more  thoroughly  may  consult  Planck,  I, 
pp.  13-23;  Tittman,  Synon.,  I,  202;  Hermeneutical  Manual,  by  Fair- 
bairn,  93;  Ed.  Kobinson's  Intro.  (Preface)  to  Greek  N.  T.  Lexicon, 
V-VII.  Hist.  Art.  in  Bib.  Kepos.,  Ap.,  1841 ;  Geo.  Campbell's  Prelim. 
Dis.,  I,  30;  Walton's  Prolegomena  on  Syriac  Versions,  I,  92;  Liddell 
&  Scott's  Greek  Lex.,  Intro.,  xx,  xxii;  M.  Stuart,  Bib.  Kepos.,  Ap., 
1833;  Home's  Intro.,  vol  1;   Winor's  Idioms,  26-34, 


90  BAPTISM. 

to  tlie  usus  loquendl,  the  current  sense  or  established  usage 
at  the  time,  to  this  more  than  to  their  etymology.  .  .  .  The 
\ultimate  use  scarcely  exhibits  a  trace  of  the  primal  signifi- 
cation." 

Carson,  the  Baptist,  so  often  quoted  says,  "  I  maintain 
that  in  figures  there  is  no  different  meaning  of  the  word. 
It  is  only  a  figurative  application.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is  always  the  same  "  (Baptism,  p.  57). 

Since  the  above  was  prepared  for  the  press  Dr.  Graves, 
in  the  Carrollton  debate,  was  so  pressed  that  he  assumed  the 
absurd  and  marvelous  position  that  the  current  meaning 
was  the  primary  meaning.  Pages  253-4  he  says,  "  The 
definition  that  all  lexicographers  place ^rs^  is  the  only  real 
and  proper  definition.''  Again,  page  254,  "  There  are  no 
settled  principles  of  philology  by  which  we  can  conclu- 
sively determine  the  current  definition  of  terms  by  their 
etymology. ^^  But  at  least  some  and  the  most  essential  "  prin- 
ciples of  philology''  are  now  unanimously  settled,  namely, 
that  we  must  trace  the  history  of  each  word  and  find  its 
earliest  meaning — its  "  primal  signification,"  as  Webster 
gavs — then,  by  its  later  history,  how  it  took  on  other  mean- 
in  o-s.  All  scholars  are  agreed  on  these  principles  since 
Passow's  day.  But  why  does  Dr.  G.  become  so  alarmed 
at  these  principles?  Truth  can  not  suffer  from  them.  He 
goes  on  worse  still :  "  It  is  true  that  very  often  the  etymo- 
logical is  the  real  physical  sense  of  the  term  [it  is  the  rad- 
ical, primal  meaning  that  applies  first  to  ^  physical  ob- 
jects,' objects  of  ^  sense ']  ;  but  then,  words  [hear  that, 
will  you]  so  drift  away  from  this  that  not  a  shadow  of  their 
etymological  meaning  remains."  He  cites  prevent,  etc.,  and 
urges  once  its  primary  meaning  was  "  to  go  before,  pre- 
cede ;"  "  now  its  primary'^  is  "  to  hinder,  etc. ! !  "  This  is 
rich,  racv,  and  rare.    It  is  astonishing  that  a  human  could 


CHANGES    IX    MEANING.  91 

litter  such  ridiculous  jargon  as  tliis.  Fairbairii  above  uses 
the  very  words  of  Webster.  Words  so  change — just  as  Dr. 
G.  says,  they  drift  away,  etc. — "  that  the  ultimate  use  [cur- 
rent usage]  scarcely  exhibits  a  trace  of  primal  significa- 
tion^^ (Her.  Man.,  page  93). 

PRIMARY   MEANINGS. 

Fowler,  History  and  Grammar  of  English  Language, 
says,  "Words  thus  in  current  use  sometimes  escape  alto- 
gether from  their  original  meaning.'^  Jahn,  the  great 
German  critic,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 
p.  95,  sec.  31,  says,  "Etymology,  that  is,  the  investigation 
of  the  primary  signification  of  luords  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  other  significations  have  arisen.    [Italics  his.]    By 

THE  PRIMARY  SIGNIFICATION  IS  MEANT  THAT  W^HICH 
THE    INVENTORS     OF    THE    LANGUAGE     ORIGINALLY 

AFFIXED  TO  A  WORD.^^  So  Gesenius,  Ernesti,  Geo.  Gimp- 
bell,  and  Havernick  hold,  and  every  standard  on  earth. 
Yet  Dr.  G.  had  to  cut  loose  and  drift  out  in  a  wild  sea  of 
breakers,  a  midnight  of  nonsense  and  absurdity,  to  evade 
the  force  of  our  facts,  repudiating  Carson  utterly  as  well  as 
all  other  authorities. 

Dr.  Ed.  Robinson\s  Greek  Lexicon,  New  Testamenc, 
1865:  "The  scholar  who  would  pursue  the  study  of  any 
language  critically  and  philologically  does  not  rest  until 
he  has  traced  each  word  to  its  origin;  investigated  its 
primitive  form  and  signification;  noted  the  various  forms 
and  senses  in  which  it  has  been  current  in  the  different 
epochs  and  dialects  of  the  language;  and  the  manner 
and  order  in  which  all  these  are  deduced  from  the  prim- 
itive one  and  from  each  other,"  etc.  (Preface,  iv).  He 
urges  that  only  thus  "is  the  scholar  master  of  the  word 


92  BAPTISM. 

in  question.  Tiiis  embraces  the  relations  in  which  it 
stands  to  other  words  in  construction  and  phrases  and 
the  various  modifications  which  it  lias  undergone  in  these 
respects." 

Dr.  Carson,  Baptist,  on  Baptism,  p.  23,  justly  says, 
^^The  just  and  most  obvious  method  of  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  a  word  is  to  examine  its  ORIGIN  and  use  in 
the  language.''     This  is  our  method. 

"  For  together  with  the  primary  signification  of  the  act 
for  the  disciples  its  second  universal.  Christian,  moral  sig- 
nification is  established"  (Lange  on  John  xiii,  10,  p.  409). 

ROOTS   AND   THEIR    MEANINGS. 

Wm.  H.  Green's  Hebrew  Grammar,  third  edition,  1875, 
p.  92,  sec.  67  :  "  Roots  do  not  enter  in  their  nude  or  prim- 
itive form  into  the  current  use  of  language,  but  they 
constitute  the  basis  upon  which  all  actually  occurring 
words,  with  the  exception  of  the  inorganw  interjections  are 
constructed.  The  second  stage  is  the  word  itself  in  its 
simple  uninflected  state."  This  is  "the  radical  idea^^  with 
the  precise  conception  intended.  The  second  stage  is  as 
"in  the  actual  utterances  of  speech,  so  modified  by  inflec- 
tions as  to  suggest  the  definite  qualifications  of  the  idea," 
tense,  mood,  etc.,  etc.  First.  In  a  word  the  root  is  not 
in  actual  current  use.  Second.  The  word  is  uninflected. 
All  inflections  modify  the  word,  and  in  this  stage  the 
radical  idea  is  brought  into  our  precise  conception  intend- 
ed, etc. 

Dr.  Carson,  Dr.  Graves's  idol  (p.  280)  takes  exactly  the 
same  view  that  these  and  all  standards  agree  on. 

Last  and  greatest  of  all  on  this  subject  we  cite  Max 
Miiller  (1876),  a  work  issued  since  the  preparation  of  these 


CHANGES    IN    MEANING.  93 

pages,  since  the  debate  at  CarroUton — Cliips  from  a  Ger- 
man Workshop,  vol.  iv,  p.  218,  which  settles  it  forever: 
^^  It  is  one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  etymology  that  in 
tracing  words  back  to  their  roots  we  have  to  show  that 
their  primary,  not  their  secondary  meanings,  agree  with  tlic 
meaning  of  the  root."  This  later  meaning,  current,  he 
calls  "  the  historical  development  of  the  meanings.^^  See 
also  page  216. 

Fowler,  the  learned  author  of  the  History  and  Gram- 
mar of  the  English  Language,  sets  this  matter  in  its  true 
light.  He  says,  "1.  The  question  may  arise  whether,  in 
a  given  sentence,  there  is  a  rhetorical  form  ?  Now  it  must 
be  conceded  that  it  is  not  always  easy  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion. .  .  .  The  number  of  radical  words  in  a  language  is 
comparatively  few,  and  are  chiefly  applied  to  physical 
objects.  As  men  found  the  stock  of  their  ideas  increasing, 
instead  of  inventing  new  terms  to  describe  them  they 
applied  old  words  with  an  extended  or  changed  mean- 
ing; or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  used  them  figuratively.  In 
this  way  the  great  body  of  words  in  a  language,  in  one 
stage  of  their  history  or  another,  has  been  used  tropically. 
The  word  imagination,  derived  from  image,  a  term  applied 
to  its  sensible  object,  was,  on  its  first  application  to  a  men- 
tal faculty  or  operation,  tropical  But  it  ceased  to  be 
TROPICAL  when  it  had  been  used  so  long  that  its  secondary 
meaning  became  indissolubly  fixed  as  the  principal  one, 
or  indeed  to  most  minds  as  its  only  one.     Imagination 

CAN  not  now  be   considered  AS   A  FIGURATIVE   TERM. 

It  has  lost  its  tropical  meaning,  at  least  to  the  mass  of  read- 
ers if  not  to  the  scholar.  What  is  true  of  imagination  is 
true  of  a  vast  number  of  words." 

Fairbairn  says  in  his  fourth  rule  to  interpret  words  of 
the  Bible,   "In  settling  the   meaning  of  words,  we  must 


94  BAPTISM. 

have  respect  chiefly  to  the  usus  loquendi,  the  current  sense, 
or  established  usage  at  the  time^'  (p.  93).  Italics  his.  He 
then  shows  that  words  so  far  depart  from  their  radical 
meamngs  "that  the  ultimate  use  scarcely  exhibits  a  trace 
of  the  primal  signification^^  (p.  93).  Villain  was  once  a 
dependent  serf  simply.  Sycophant  once  meant  only  an 
accuser,  then  false  accuser,  now  a  fawning  flatterer.  Yet 
in  Greek  it  originally  meant  a  big  shower. 

Winer,  a  universal  standard,  without  a  superior  in  the 
department  of  New  Testament  grammatical  use,  treats  the 
subject  of  classical  use  and  grammatical  rules  with  admir- 
able judgment.  Idioms,  pp.  26,  27,  he  shows  that  in  Alex- 
ander's time  and  on  the  Greek  "underwent  an  internal 
change  of  a  twofold  nature,''  the  Attic  its  basis,  "and  there 
arose  a  language  of  popular  intercourse,"  this  became 
prominently  Macedonian.  This,  differing  especially  in  the 
"provinces  of  Asia  and  Africa,  constituted  the  basis  of  the 
style  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  Apocrypha  as  well  as  the 
New  Testament."  He  shows  that  "the  Jews  in  Egypt 
and  Palestine  learned  the  Greek  first  by  intercourse  with 
the  Greeks,  not  from  books."  This  was  the  case  emi- 
nently as  to  "the  LXX,  New  Testament  writers,  and  the 
authors  of  many  (Palestine)  Apocrypha.  A  few  of  the 
learned  Jews,  who  valued  and  studied  Greek  literature, 
approached  nearer  to  the  written  language,  as  Philo  and 
Josephus."  Winer  then  says  in  a  note,  "That  the  style  of 
the  latter  (Josephus)  can  not  be  accounted  the  same  with 
that  of  the  Septuagint  or  of  the  New  Testament  will  be 
readily  perceived  by  a  comparison  of  the  sections  in  the 
earlier  books  of  the  Antiquities  with  the  parallel  ones  of 
the  Septuagint"  (p.  27).  In  the  peculiarities  of  the  New 
Testament  Greek  he  shows  witli  Planck,  Sturz,  and  Lo- 
beck  that  "entirely  new  words  and  formulas  were  con- 


CHANGES    IN    MEANING.  ^-J 

structed/'  of  which  "baptisma/'  baptism,  is  given  as  one 
(p.  30).  Now  how  can  classic  Greek  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  a  word  never  in  use  in  any  classic  author?  He  then 
shows  that  into  this  New  Testament  dialect  came  "  foreign 
intermixtures/^  and  their  Greek  style  took  not  only  the 
general  complexion  of  their  mother  tongue  (Hebrew), 
which  showed  itself  in  monotony  and  circumlocution,  but 
more  especially  its  inflexions.   .   .   . 

Hebraisms  and  Aramseisms  (Syriac  shades)  are  more 
numerous  in  lexicography  than  grammar.  Lexical  Hebra- 
isms soon  became  established,  consisting  in  extension  of 
meaning,  etc.  Hence  originated  a  Jewish  Greek,  ichich 
native  Greeks  generally  did  not  understand,  and  therefore 
despised  J''  So  Hug.,  Introduction  to  New  Testament, 
vol.  1,  137,  Buttman,  Kiihner,  Jelf,  and  all  writers  agree 
in  all  this.  How  absurd,  then,  to  use  a  literature — 
classic  Greek  —  as  all  immersionists  do,  to  show  the 
meaning  of  haptism  in  the  New  Testament  when  the  very 
word  never  occurs  in  all  their  voluminous  works,  and  go 
to  its  verb  form  in  a  language  the  apostles  ^'did  not 
understand. '^ 

After  Alexander  the  Great  ''  The  Syrians  and  Hebrews 
spoke  a  more  corrupt  Greek  than  the  native  Grecians,  and 
impressed  on  it  more  or  less  of  the  stamp  of  their  vernacii- 
lar  language''  (p.  32).  Hence  the  dialect  tlius  formed 
'^vhich  originated  with  them''  ('^this  Oriental  Greek  dia- 
lect'') "acquired  the  name  of  HeUenistiG  idiom'''  (Winer's 
Id.,  p.  32).^     The  learned  Scaliger,  not  Drusius,  gave  it 

*We  feel  like  apologizing  to  any  scholar  for  introducing  such  a 
world  of  evidence  on  such  a  subject,  now  universally  acceded  to  by 
reasonable  scholars  (see  on  the  Greek  Language  in  the  English  Cyclo- 
pedia, etc.) ;  but  the  bitterness  of  partisanship  on  baptism  drives  men  to 
say  very  absurd  things,  and  we  have  to  waste  much  space  to  expose 
them. 


96  BAPTISM. 

this  appellation.  ^^It  is  well  known  that  in  the  time  of 
Christ  the  Syro-Chaldaic  and  not  the  old  Hebrew  was  the 
populai-  language  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine  {ibid.,  pp.  32, 
33).  Winer  then  shows  that  some  carry  these  facts  too 
far,  stretch  them  into  abuse. 

From  these  facts  we  may  readily  see  why  the  Jews 
used  baptism  in  the  sense  in  which  it  occurs  throughout 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  sprinkling  and  pouring  on  of 
water  for  religious  purposes.  Hence  the  Hebrew  and 
Syriac  or  Aramaean  languages  will  shed  far  more  light  on 
it  than  any  other  source  of  information,  since  as  it  occurs 
in  the  New  Testament  it  was  wholly  by  Jews. 

We  give  these  facts  though  and  rules  as  to  the  differ- 
ence between  radical  and  metaphorical  uses  of  words  to 
have  correct  principles  laid  down,  while  at  the  same  time 
we  are  not  at  all  dependent  on  them  to  establish  our  prin- 
ciples, as  the  reader  will  readily  see. 

The  twelve  apostles  and  Christ  being  Jews  (as  well  as 
all  their  converts  for  eight  or  ten  years  after  the  com- 
mission was  given  save  one  or  two  individuals)  never  read 
or  spoke  in  classic  Greek.  Paul  seems  to  have  had  some 
knowledge  of  the  classics.  But  not  one  of  the  twelve  to 
whom  Christ  gave  the  commission  ever  read  classic  Greek. 
This  fact  need  not  debar  us  from  going  to  the  classics,  but 
should  teach  us  how  to  use  them.  The  Greek  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  Apocrypha,  and  Septuagint  was  a  differ- 
ent dialect  altogether  from  that  of  the  classics.*  The 
difference  need  not  here  be  noted  only  as  applied  to  thi.j 
word.     The  following  facts  are  very  important. 

*  And  yet  Dr.  Graves  (Graves-Ditzler  Debate)  says,  page  527,  "  It  is 
not  true  that  any  standard  lexicon  distinguishes  between  classic  Greek 
and  Kew  Testament  Greek  in  giving  definitions  of  bapiidzo."  Not  one 
standard  lexicon  exists  that  fails  to  note  a  difference. 


CHANGES    IN    MEANING.  97 


CLASSIC   AND   NEW   TESTAMENT   GEEEK. 

While,  therefore,  classic  Greek  is  essential  to  the  science 
of  language,  its  use  could  never  determine  the  force  bap- 
tidzo  has  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  following  facts  suf- 
ficiently show : 

1.  Baptism,  the  noun  baptisma,  never  appears  in  any 
classic  before  Christ.  It  first  appears  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

2.  In  classic  (heathen)  Greek  baptidzo  is  never  applied 
to  a  religious  rite. 

3.  Nowhere  is  it,  or  any  of  its  names,  applied  to  relig- 
ious washings,  cleansings,  or  "initiations,'^  etc. 

4.  Nor  does  baptidzo  or  its  nouns  in  classic  Greek 
ever  apply  to  washing. 

5.  In  classic  Greek,  after  it  came  to  imply  immersion 
as  one  of  its  meanings,  it  always  leaves  the  object  im- 
mersed or  submersed  to  whatever  extent  it  put  it  into  or 
under  the  element. 

6.  In  the  New  Testament  and  Apocrypha  it  never  has 
such  force  or  use. 

7.  In  classic  Greek  it  often  means  to  make  drunk, 
intoxicate.  It  never  has  such  meaning  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment or  Apocrypha  or  LXX. 

8.  In  the  classics  it  often  means  to  drown,  over- 
whelm,* submerge,  leaving  its  object  submerged  always 
when  it  so  occurs,  but  never  has  such  force  in  the  New 
Testament. 

9.  As  a  religious  word  immerse  can  not  represent  bap- 
tidzo.    The  English  of  immerse  all  admit  is  to  "sink  in." 

"*  Some  think  baptisma  means  overwhelming  sufferings  once  in  New 
Testament  correct  Greek  text ;  but  all  early  fathers  apply  that  to  sheddino- 
His  blood  on  the  cross,  and  the  water  that  came  out  of  His  side. 

7 


98  BAPTISM. 

How  can   "sink  in"    or   sink    represent  New  Testament 
baptism  ? 

10.  As  a  classic  word  dip  or  even  baptize  in  English 
can  not  represent  baptidzo  in  the  classics,  since  the  latter 
means  most  generally  to  asj^erse,  pour  abuse  upon,  over- 
whelm, intoxicate,  overwhelm  Avith  debts,  taxes,  confusion, 
drown.     Dip  does  not  represent  any  of  these. 

11.  Every  lexicon  of  any  note  and  every  Greek  scholar 
of  any  rank  make  a  distinction  between  baptidzo  in  the 
classics  and  the  New  Testament  that  is  emphatic  and 
pointed,  unless  we  except  a  few  Baptist  writers  who  are 
governed  wliolly  by  their  prejudices  on  the  question.* 

These  facts  settle  the  question,  if  facts,  along  with  the 
authorities,  can  settle  a  question. f 

As  long  as  you  hold  an  object  under  the  water  it  is 
immersed,  it  is  not  baptized.  As  soon  as  you  take  the 
subject  out  of  the  element  he  is   baptized,  but  he  is  not 

*  The  fact  that  I  presented  these  facts  in  substance  in  the  Louisville 
Debate,  1870,  pp.  405-G,  and  in  the  Carrollton  Debate,  pp.  371-2,  and 
Drs.  Wilkes  and  Graves  never  offered  a  reply,  shows  that  they  felt  they 
could  not  explain  away  these  difficulties. 

tYet  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  527)  says,  "It  is  not  true  that  any 
standard  lexicon  distinguishes  between  classic  Greek  and  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  in  giving  definitions  of  baptidzo."  Let  the  reader  turn  to 
our  lexicons  and  see,  as  we  cite  them.  There  is  not  a  standard  Greek 
lexicon  in  existence  that  fails  to  distinguish  the  difference.  His  own 
Liddell  &  Scott,  quoted  correctly,  in  Prof.  Drissler's  letter,  in  the  Debate, 
page  495,  the  only  fair  rej)ort  of  a  lexicon  on  his  side  in  the  entire  book, 
notes  the  distinction,  however  feebly  or  imperfectly,  as  compared  with 
Stokius,  Schleusner,  Passow,  Post,  Palm,  and  Pape.  He  garbles,  sup- 
presses, mistranslates,  translates  the  same  entirely  different  in  other 
places,  and  he  has  not  copied  in  the  Latin  the  whole  New  Testament 
definition  of  a  single  lexicon  quoted.  He  has  not  copied  the  original  or 
!i  translation  of  a  single  German  lexicon  in  full,  but  has  left  out  what 
they  called  the  gener-al  meaning  of  the  word.  In  a  word,  he  has  man- 
gled every  lexicon  in  the  Greek,  Hebrew,  or  Syriac  that  he  has  cited — 
not  reporting  a  single  one  correctly. 


CHANGES   IN    MEANING.  99 

immersed.      Hence  you  can   see   the  difference  between 
immersion  as  a  mere  act  and  baptism. 

Baptism  implies  that  which  neither  immersion,  sprinJc- 
ling,  pouringy  nor  dipping,  as  mere  actions,  imply.  This 
is  one  of  the  constant  blunders  of  immersionists — they 
look  at  and  for  mere  action  as  if  it  were  only  a  secular 
word. 

12.  As  all  immersionists  agree  that  baptism  is  alluded 
to  often  in  both  the  Old  Testament  and  New  by  the  term 
wash,  rendered  ^' bathe''  sometimes;  that  haptidzo  repre- 
sents the  rachats,  and  louo,  wash,  of  the  Pentateuch  (Co- 
nant,  Carson,  Gale,  Ingham,  A.  Campbell,*  and  all  their 
writers  do  this  in  common,  and  we  all  concur,  and  they 
hold  also  that  the  wa^h  of  Titus  iii,  5;  Ephesians  v,  25, 
26 ;  Acts  xxii,  16,  etc.  refer  to  baptism),  will  they  tell  us 
ichen  and  where  the  haptidzo  of  classic  Greek  ever  took 
such  a  meaning?  If  wash  is  derived  from  immerse,  why 
does  haptidzo  never  mean  to  wash  in  the  classics?  They 
know  they  are  dumh  as  an  oyster  here.  If  a  man  can  not 
see  from  all  this  that  mere  classic  usage  outside  of  phil- 
ology gives  us  no  light  on  haptidzo  directly  as  a  religious 
word,  or  word  applied  to  the  ordinance  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  he  would  not  believe  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead. 

13.  The  words  immerse,  sink,  dip,  often  occur  in  the 
Greek  of  the  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  and 
Apocrypha ;  e.  g.  enduo,  pontidzo,  huthidzo,  dupto,  katapon- 
tidzo,  kataduo  (Ps.  Ixix,  2,  15;  cxxiv,  4;  Ex.  xv,  4,  5, 
10;  2  Mac.  xii,  4;  1  Tim.  vi,  9;  Luke  v,  7;  Matt,  xviii, 
6;  xiv,  13).  Had  the  sacred  writers  intended  immersion 
or  dipping  it  would  have  been  expressed  ])y  one  or  more 

*  Gale,  Wall,  ii,  pp.  95-107 ;  A.  Campbell,  Chris.  Baptism,  pp.  167, 
173-4,  etc.;  Ingham,  pp.  383-386,  etc. 


100  BAPTISM. 

of  these  words.  Not  once  is  either  of  them  used  in  the 
Bible  for  baptism,  either  in  speaking  of  it  or  alluding  to 
it  in  the  various  ways  in  which  we  find  it  alluded  to  in 
the  Bible.     Such  are  the  indisputable  facts  in  proof. 

Dr.  Conant  (Baptizein,  p.  159)  says  of  baptidzo,  "The 
word  was  a  favorite  one  in  the  Greek  language.  When- 
ever the  idea  of  total  submergence  was  to  be  expressed, 
whether  literally  or  metaphorically,  this  was  the  word 
which  first  presented  itself.^^  How  utterly  incorrect  this 
statement  is  will  be  realized  when  it  is  stated  that  baptidzo 
never  occurs  at  all  in  all  the  works  of  Homer  describing 
sea  voyages,  storms,  battles,  loss  of  ships,  etc. ;  nor  once 
in  Hesiod,  not  once  in  ^^schylus,  Sophocles,  Herodotus, 
Xenophon,  Thucydides ;  only  once  in  Aristotle,  twice  in 
Plato,  not  once  in  Theocritus,  Bion,  Moschus,  Tyrtseus; 
and  only  thirty-three  times  in  all  the  voluminous  Greek 
writers  from  Homer  till  the  birth  of  Christ,  Conant  him- 
self being  the  judge!  In  one  of  these  cases  it  is  com- 
pounded with  a  preposition. 

Let  us  now  call  attention  to  another  important  canon. 

Blackstone,  the  great  standard  in  Europe  and  America 
on  law,  gives  us  such  a  correct  and  unexceptional  direction 
here  that  we  readily  adopt  it  as  the  essence  of  all  that  can 
be  said  here : 

1.  Blackstone  xx,  vol.  1,  §11,  59-61 :  "To  interpret  a 
law  we  must  inquire  after  the  will  of  the  maheVy  which 
may  be  collected  either  from  the  words,  the  context,  the 
subject-matter,  the  effects  and  consequence,  or  the  spirit 
and  reason  of  the  law. 

"  First.  Words  are  generally  to  be  understood  in  their 
usual  and  most  know^n  signification,  not  so  much  regard- 
ing the  propriety  of  grammar,  as  their  general  and  pop- 
ular use.  ... 


CHANGES   IN    MEANING.  101 

"Second.  If  words  happen  to  be  still  dubious,  we  may 
establish  their  meaning  from  the  context,  etc.  Of  the  same 
nature  and  use  is  the  comparison  of  a  law  icith  laws,  that 
are  made  hy  the  same  legislator,  that  have  some  affinity 
with  the  subject,  or  that  expeessi^y  eelate  to  the  same 
point.  .  .  .  '^ 

Here  we  are  compelled  to  abandon  classics,  as  not  homo- 
geneous with  Bible  Greek,  to  find  the  true  force  of  the 
purely  religious  words  of  the  Bible. 

Before  presenting  our  proofs  of  the  erroneousness  of 
all  their  assertions  as  to  lexions,  and  having  destroyed  all 
their  theories  and  so-called  axiomata,  we  wish  to  notice 
two  more  favorite  theories  of  the  more  humble  and  less 
learned  writers  on  the  immersion  side. 

They  assume  it  as  a  rule  that  if  haptidzo  means  sprinkle, 
pour,  immerse,  a  person  then  is  not  baptized  till  all  these 
definitions  be  exhausted  upon  him  !  Such  an  assertion  is 
too  silly  to  be  seriously  noticed.  AVe  will  simply  answer, 
however,  thus :  If  because  we  discover  three  meanings  these 
three  must  all  be  exhausted  on  the  subject  ere  he  is  bap- 
tized, how  then  can  our  opponents  ever  baptize  any  one, 
when  A.  C.  himself  gives  to  baptidzo  thirteen  or  fourteen 
renderings,  among  them  drench,  intoxicate,  drown;  and 
putting  all  their  great  lights  together,  we  have  at  least  the 
following  meanings:  "Soak,''  "  dip,''  "imbrue,"  "drench," 
"whelm,"  "overwhelm,"  "immerge,"  "sink,"  "plunge," 
"intoxicate,"  "lay,"  "endure,"  "administer,"  "drown," 
"overflow,"  "inundate,"  "plunge  in  a  knife,"  "make 
drunk,"  "wash,"  "steep" — twenty  meanings.  This  will 
do !  When  we  see  them  exhaust  these  definitions  on  their 
candidates,  we  will  all  be  besieged  by  the  masses  rather  to  ■ 
exhaust  only  one  definition  on  them.  It  will  be  seen  at 
the  same  time  how  silly  also  is  Mr.  A.  C.'s  fiest  peecept 


102  BAPTISM. 

FEOM  THE  DECALOGUE  OF  PHILOLOGY  (Christian  Bap- 
tism, page  178),  *  viz.  ^'That  the  definition  of  a  word  and  the 
word  itself  are  alivays  convertible  terms.''  Italics  his.  He 
then  urges  that  you  ''  substitute  it  (the  definition)  in  the 
place  of  the  original  word  defined  or  translated,"  and  *^  in 
all  places  the  definition  makes  good  sense."  Otherwise  it 
is  incorrect.  Let  now  the  reader  apply  the  above  defini- 
tions, most  of  which  are  Mr.  A.  Campbell's,  to  the  com- 
mission and  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  orig- 
inal is  baptidzo,  how  will  it  do?  "Go,  disciple  all  nations, 
soaking  them,"  etc.  "John  the  drunkard  came,  preaching 
the  intoxication  of  repentance."  "  He  commanded  them  to 
be  drowned^'  (Acts  x,  46,  47). 

Mr.  A.  C.  then  goes  on  :  "  The  word  sprinkle  is  always 
followed  by  the  substance  sprinkled,  and  next  by  the  ob- 
ject. We  can  sprinkle  ashes,  dust,  water,  or  blood,  etc., 
because  the  particles  can  be  severed  with  ease,  but  can 
we  sprinkle  a  raanf  AVe  may  sprinkle  something  upon 
him,  but  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  sprinhle  another 
in  a  river"  (Christian  Baptism,  page  178).  "This  text 
will  hold  to  the  end  of  the  volume"  (page  179).  "Now, 
as  John  can  not  pour  the  material  James,  neither  can  lie 
sprinkle  him.  .  .  It  is  highly  improper  and  ungrammatical 
to  use  such  a  phrase"  (page  179).  "Some  persons  accus- 
tomed to  a  very  loose  style  see  no  impropriety  in  the  phrase 
^sprinkle  him — pour  him/  because  of  the  supplement  in 
their  minds.  .  .  Now,  while  the  abbreviation  may  be  tol- 
eratedf  so  far  as  time  is  concerned,  it  is  intolerable  in  physical 
and  grammatical  propriety,  because  it  is  physically  impos- 
sible to  scatter  a  man  into  particles  like  dust,  or  to  pour 
him  out  like  water,"  etc.  (page  179,  180). 

"••■  We  do  not  regard  A.  Campbell  as  a  "  lesser  light"  as  an  intellectual 
man.  He  was  a  man  of  wonderful  resources  and  personal  influence — a 
great  man  truly,  but  crude  and  defective  in  verbal  criticism. 


CHANGES    IN    MEANING.  103 

If  Mr.  C,  Dr.  Graves,  etc.  were  as  loosely  constructed 
as  this  so-called  first  precept  in  the  decalogue  of  philol- 
ogy, certainly  they  could  be  scattered  as  dust  and  absorbed 
as  water.     They  ought  to  have  known — 

1.  That  the  Hebrew  word  mostly  used  for  sprinkle, 
nazah  (Arabic,  nazaeh),  not  only  took  a  direct  accusative 
of  the  person,  but  meant  to  moisten,  to  make  wet,  irrigate ; 
which  words  take  direct  accusatives  constantly.  And  this 
is  the  Hebrew  word  they  cite. 

2.  They  should  have  known  that  they  contend  that 
nazah,  to  sprinkle,  occurs  in  Isaiah  lii,  15,  where  they  in- 
sist on  rendering  as  the  LXX  do — ^''  astonish/^  which  ruins 
his  decalogue.     No  preposition  can  come  between  here. 

3.  He  ought  to  liave  known  that  the  two  Latin  words 
generally  used  for  sprinkle,  lyerfundo  and  spargo,  take  a 
direct  accusative  of  the  person ;  i.  e.  Ovid's  Met.  iii,  190- 
195,  ''And  sprinkled  his  vile  face,  and  sprinkling  his  hair," 
etc.*  T\\Sit  per f undo,  to  sprinkle,  also  meant  to  wet,  be- 
dew, etc.,  utterly  destroying  his  rule. 

4.  That  Gonspergo,  to  sprinkle,  meant  "  to  stain,"  to 
"soil,"  etc.,  taking  accusatives. 

5.  That  the  following  quotations,  which  could  be  multi- 
plied a  thousand-fold,  show  the  utter  ignorance  or  intellect- 
ual obtusity  of  these  men :  ''  The  demons  .  .  .  caused  those 
entering  their  temples  to  sprinkle  themselves."t  ''Sprinkle 
one  with  songs,"  "  sprinkle  one  with  praise."  |  The 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriac  of  Psalm  li,  9,  reads  "Sprinkle 
me  with  hyssop;"  §  2  Maccabees  i,  21,  "Sprinkle  the  wood 
with  water,  etc."  |]     "  He  sprinkled  me  with  a  cloud  of 

*  Vultunique ;  perfudit ;  spargensque  comas. 

t  Justin  Martyr :  Vavri^eiv  eavrovg. 

%  'Paiviiv  TLva  vfiva — 'palvecv  kv7.oyiaQ  nva.     Pindar  viii,  p.  81,  etc. 

§  Rusi,  pavrelg  fie — asperges  me. 

j]  ''Eircppdvai  ro)  vSari  ra  re  ^vTm,  etc. 


104  BAPTISM. 

diist'^  (Ovid^s  Met.  ix,  35).*  "Consult  now  Hebrews  ix, 
19,  21;  xi,  28;  xii,  24;  x,  22;  Latin  of  Isaiah  lii,  15,  as 
well  as  Syriac,  German,  etc.  In  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
Webster,  Worcester,  all  authors  of  most  learning  and  taste 
in  all  languages,  use  as  constantly  that  form  as  any  form 
on  earth  whenever  a  subject  is  treated  of  that  brings  it  up, 
it  is  absolutely  amazing  that  any  man  however  obstupi- 
fied  by  prejudice  or  besotted  with  party  spirit  could  make 
such  blunders  as  the  dhow e,  followed  also  by  so  many.f 

'^  Spar  get  me,  etc.     So  perfudit  caput;  Castell :  Sprinkled  the  head, 
t  After  the  above  was  written,  Dr.  J.  K.  Graves,  in  the  Carrol  Hon 

debate,  presses  this  silly  rule  with  an  earnestness  that  is  astonishing, 

wnich  shows  how  desperate  is  their  cause. 


GKEEK    LEXICONS — FIRST   ON   BAPTO.  105 


CHAPTER  X. 

Greek  Lexicons — First  on  Bapto. 

We  now  quote  the  lexicons.  For  forty  years  the 
immersion  pulpits  have  rung  with  the  testimony  of  the 
lexicons.  As  a  sample  of  the  many  bold  and  daring 
assertions  we  quote  a  few  specimens  from  Mr.  A.  Camp- 
bell. Remember  that  many  of  these  authors  are  defining 
classic  Greek ;  that  their  theories  of  immersion  were  built 
on  the  false  assumptions  we  have  refuted,  and  which 
Conant,  Carson,  Ingham,  and  others  utterly  refute ;  that 
Stokius,  Schleusner,  Suicer,  etc.  belong  to  that  class;  that 
all  these  lexicons,  save  Passow  (Greek),  Rost,  Palm, 
Pape,  Avere  more  or  less  translated  from  and  based  upon 
those  lexicons  made  in  the  dawn  of  the  revival  of  Greek 
literature,  Avhen  immersion  was  the  enforced  law  of  the 
land,  the  general  practice  where  they  were  made;  affusion 
being  allowed  only  in  cases  of  parties  too  weak  or  ill  to 
allow  of  "  dipping."  Though  pedobaptists,  they  are  all 
based  on  immersion  sources  and  under  its  influence.  We 
give  the  definitions  of  those  recognized  as  the  great  mas- 
ters of  lexicography. 

That  the  lexicons  simply  aim  to  present  the  current, 
not  the  primary,  meaning  of  bapto  is  evident,  for,  first, 
the  older  ones,  whom  the  rest  follow — copy — did  not  dis- 
cuss primaries  at  that  time;  second,  the  first  citation 
Stephanus  gives  is  Aratus,  seven  centuries  later  than  its 
occurrence  in  Greek,  four  centuries  later  than  we  meet 


106  BAPTISM. 

with  it  in  other  writers  than  Homer.  If  it  be  contended 
that  such  lexicographers  were  discussing  primaries  thus,  it 
destroys  their  merit  utterly  and  disqualifies  them  utterly 
as  witnesses.    See  fully  on  this  under  baptidzo  hereafter. 

We  present  a  few  authorities  on  bapto,  the  root  of 
baptidzo,  not  giving  all  they  say,  but  a  few;  and  we  give 
the  first  meanings  they  attach,  as  our  opponents  contend 
these  are  the  primary  meanings. 

A.  Campbell  says  (Christian  Baptism),  "We  have, 
then,  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  distinguished 
lexicographers  known  in  Europe  or  America  that  the 
proper  and  every- where  current  signification  of  baptizo 
....  is  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse,  and  that  any  other 
meaning  is  tropical,  rhetorical,  or  fanciful^'  (§§  126,  127, 
147). 

"They  all  (lexicons)  without  one  single  excep- 
tion, give,  dip,  immerse,  sink,  or  plunge,  synonymously 
expressive  of  the  true,  proper,  and  primary  signification 
of  baptizo;  not  one  of  them  giving  sprinkle  or  pour  as  a 
meaning  of  it,  or  any  of  its  family.^'  "It  never  has  been 
(Debate,  p.  109)  translated  by  either  sprinkle  or  pour  by 
any  lexicographer  for  eighteen  hundred  years  ^'  (Debate, 
p.  139).  "  Can  not  show  one  (Greek  dictionary)  that  gives 
ivash  as  its  first  meaning"  (Debate,  p.  118). 

1.  Stokius:  Bdrroj,  bapto,  tingo,  moisten,  stain. 

2.  Cyrilli  Philexeni  Glossaria:  Bapto,  to  stain,  moisten, 
imbue,  wet.* 

3.  Faciolatus  and  Forcellini  give  bapto  as  the  synonym 
of  tingo,  to  moisten,  wet. 

4.  Andrews's  Latin  Lexicon :  Baptcc,  painters. 

5.  An thon's  Classical  Dictionary:  "Baptse.  The  priests 
of  Cotytto.     The  name  is  derived  from  /9a--w,  to  tinge  or 

*  BcTT-w,  inficio,  tinguo,  fuco^  imbuo,  tingo. 


GEEEK    LEXICONS — FIRST    ON   BAPTO.  107 

dye,   from   their  painting  their  cheeks   and   staining  the 
parts  around  the  eyes  like  women. ^^ 

6.  Kiihner's  Greek  Grammar,  §  143,  p.  173:  Bd-Kzw, 
bapto,  to  ti7ige. 

7.  Dalzel,  Grseci  Majorum:  Bdizrw  (tingo),  tinge. 

8.  Ursinus's  Greek  Lexicon :  To  stain,  to  dye,  to  wash  or 
cleanse  (abluo),  to  sprinkle  (aspergo). 

9.  Groves's  Greek  Lexicon :  To  dip,  plunge,  immerse, 
wash,  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle,  steep,  imbue,  dye,  stain,  color. 

10.  Gazes:  Bapto,^  to  cast  or  thrust  down.  To  stain, 
to  dye,  and  to  sink.  To  pour  any  thing  into  or  on  any 
thing.  ...  To  shed  forth,  to  wash,  to  wash  the  hands,  etc. 

11.  Kouma,  almost  same  as  G.,  has  hrecho,  shed  forth, 
or  sprinkle,  wash,  etc. 

12.  Stephanus,  favoring  immersion,  gives  ^^  paint  ^' 
(fuco),  "stain,"  "moisten,'^  "imbue"  as  by  far  the  most 
prevalent  meaning,  and  "pour  upon.^f 

Although  we  have  only  quoted  a  few  lexicons,  several 
of  the  above  not  only  being  lexicographers  but  gramma- 
rians, annotators  on  classic  Greek,  etc.,  such  as  Klihner, 
yet  his  learning  and  accuracy  are  far,  very  far,  above  the 
great  body  of  lexicographers,  and  he  is  aiming  at  the  jjri- 
mary  force,  they  at  popular  classic  use,  to  aid  students  to 
translate.  We  give  more,  however,  on  bapto  by  far  than 
A.  Campbell  and  others.  As  immersionists  appeal  from 
lexicons  in  disgust,  we  give  more  space  to  "authorities'' 
appealed  to  as  more  valuable. 

"•••Gazes,  a  native  Greek  lexicographer  of  immense  research  and 
learning,  defines  f^aTrro)  thus:   1.  Bdllo)  n  jusaa  (elg  ttjv  (Safvv)  elg  ri.     2. 

ttTivvo).     6.  AvT?M,  ye/j.il^G). 

t "  Superfusa,"  this  being  by  the  great  editor,  Yalpey,  Buddseus, 
the  older  lexicographer,  and  ancient  glosses  do  the  same — give  stain, 
paint,  moisten,  imbue,  as  the  prevailing  use  of  bapto. 


108  BAPTISM. 

Carson  insists  that  ^^as  to  totality  of  immersion,  the  one 
(bapto)  is  perfectly  the  equivalent  to  the  other/^  baptidzo 
(p.  23).     A.  Campbell,  Gale,  etc.  fully  adhere  to  the  same. 

Evidently  a  close  inspection  shows  this  to  be  utterly 
untrue ;  that  bapto  is  far  feebler  than  baptidzo,  the  former 
never  being  applied  in  the  classics  to  such  bap)ting  or  bap- 
tizing forces  and  elements  as  the  waves  of  the  sea,  over- 
flowing tides,  great  calamities,  burdening  debts,  misfor- 
tunes, etc.,  or  torrents  of  abusive  epithets.  But  that  is 
not  our  fight;  if  they  admit  what  A.  Campbell,  Carson, 
Gale,  Ingham,  Eipley,  Cox,  Mell,  etc.  do,  it  is  not  our 
loss.  Yet  the  truth  requires  this  remark.  But  since  all 
agree  that  an  appeal  to  original  authors  is  alone  a  settle- 
ment of  the  question,  to  them  at  once  we  will  appeal. 

Dr.  A.  Carson,  Baptist,  says  of  lexicons,  "They  are 
not  an  ultimate  authority.  .  .  The  meaning  of  a  word  must 
ultimately  be  determined  by  an  actual  inspection  of  the  pas- 
sages in  which  it  occurs'^  (p.  56).  "The  just  and  most 
obvious  method  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  a  word 
is  to  examine  its  origin  and  use  in  the  language''  (p.  23). 
Again,  "Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language"  (p. 
46).     Capitals  his. 

President  J.  M.  Pendleton,  D.D.,  New  York:  "Lex- 
icons indeed  do  not  constitute  the  ultimate  authority " 
("Why  I  am  a  Baptist,"  p.  ^Q>).  He  repeats  it  (p.  96)  and 
adds,  "Lexicographers  are  necessarily  dependent  on  the 
sense  in  which  Avords  are  used,  to  ascertain  their  meaning. 
But  it  is  not  impossible  for  them  to  mistake  the  sense.  If 
they  do,  there  is  an  appeal  from  their  definitions  to  the 
usus  loguendi,  which  is  the  ultimate  authority  (p.  96). 

A.  Campbell's  Christian  Baptism,  p.  122:  "The  mean- 
ing of  a  word  is  ascertained  by  the  usage  of  those  writers 
and   speakers   whose   knowledge   and   acquirements  have 


GREEK    LEXICONS — FIRST    ON    BAPTO.  109 

made  them  masters  of  their  own  language.  .  .  .  We,  in- 
deed, try  the  dictionaries  tliemselves  by  the  classics,  the  ex- 
tant authors  of  the  language."  See  127,  130-133,  also. 
To  the  same  effect  speaks  Ingham  (p.  43),  and  then  quotes 
Carson  as  above  at  length.  Conant  Avrites  his  whole  work 
on  this  assumption,  appealing  at  once  from  the  lexicons. 
So  does  Professor  Ripley  and  all  the  rest.  We  fully  ac- 
knowledge the  justness  of  their  position,  though  not  their 
inconsistency  in  such  wholesale  repudiation  of  lexical 
authority.  Yet  we  are  bound  to  admit  the  principles  they 
act  upon,  that  lexicons  are  not  '^ultimate  authority  J' 

But  in  appealing  to  the  "  ultimate  authority,"  and  mak- 
ing an  ^^  inspection  of  the  passages  in  Avhich  it  occurs," 
knowing  that  w^ords  in  all  languages  are  always  changing, 
as  A.  Campbell  and  others  tell  us,  and  as  demonstrated 
in  these  pages  so  fully,  we  will  not  pursue  the  unscientific 
and  strange  method  of  Carson,  M.  Stuart,  Beecher  (Dr. 
Edward),  Gale,  and  others  of  confounding  and  confus- 
ing baptOj  the  root,  with  baptidzo. 


110  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Bapto  in  Greek  Weiters. 

Drs.  Gale,  Carson,  A.  Campbell,  M.  Stuart,  E.  Beecber, 
etc.  confound  hapto  and  haptidzo  in  a  beterogeneous  mass. 
Tbey  first  cite  a  sentence  with  hapto  in  it,  tben  a  few  with 
haptidzo  in  them,  then  a  few  with  hapto,  until  only  Greek 
scholars  can  tell  the  difference  in  the  words.  Their  mean- 
ings are  utterly  confounded.  Along  with  tbese,  Conant, 
Dale,  Ripley,  Vossius,  Suicer,  and  all  the  rest  have  paid 
no  attention  to,  first,  the  dates*  of  authors,  so  as  to  trace 
prunary  uses,  trace  developed  meanings,  and  arrive  at 
some  conclusion  tbat  would  be  satisfactory,  or  at  least  give 
promise  of  such  a  result  some  day;  second,  the  relative 
merits  of  writers  in  Greek ;  third,  periods  of  the  Greek 
language  in  which  marked  changes  occur,  as  from  Plato 
to  Polybius.  In  a  word,  they  seem  never  to  have  thought 
of  the  fundamental  principle  in  all  philology,  that  system, 
order,  development  of  language,  cbronological  order  must 
be  observed.  As  a  sample  of  the  reckless  manner  of 
treating  this  subject.  Dr.  Dale,  in  his  late  works  on  bap- 
tism, when  treating  on  hapto,  its  primary  meaning,  to  be 
determined  by  ^^ inspection  of  the  passages"  in  which  it 
occurs,  entirely  ignores  every  rule  or  principle  by  which 
a  primary  could  be  discovered.    He  cites  his^rs^  passage  to 

*  Conant  and  others  often  give  the  age  in  which  an  author  was  born 
or  wrote,  but  have  no  chronological  order  at  all.  That  is  the  point  of 
value. 


BAPTO    IN    GREEK    WRITERS.  Ill 

find  a  primary  from  an  author  who  flourished  some  twelve 
hundred  years  later  than  Homer !  He  inspects  a  passage 
nearly  a  hundred  years  later  than  ^schylus.  And  he  uses 
the  word  primary  in  the  sense  we  do  and  in  that  of  all 
scholars  on  the  subject  of  primaries.  Such  has  been  the 
unscientific  method  on  this  subject.  Nor  does  he  ever 
hint  that  between  even  Plato  and  his  Iron-age  author 
there  had  been  a  great  breakdown  in  the  language — a 
fact  auy  lexicographer  of  note  would  have  told  him  of  in 
his  introduction.  Is  it  a  wonder  that  no  definite  philolog- 
ical facts  could  be  settled  upon,  but  merely  some  surface 
facts  discovered  but  not  explained.  We  will  see  more  of 
this  under  baptidzo. 

To  trace  the  primary  meaning,  then,  of  bapto,  the  uni- 
versally admitted  root  of  baptidzo,  we  will  give  all  the 
earliest  occurrences  of  the  word  that  have  been  found, 
unless  by  accident  some  have  escaped  our  observation, 
which  would  not  materially  change  the  question,  though 
if  it  did  it  would  likely  be  in  our  favor,  since  the  other 
side  has  produced  all  they  could,  and  we  select  mainly 
from  them. 

We  will  begin  by  giving  a  summary  of  Drs.  M.  Stuart 
and  Dale,  when  producing  all  the  texts  they  could  on  bapto, 
giving  the  ages  in  which  they  lived,  and  without  any  scien- 
tific order.  And  Dale  at  least  wants  to  prove  immerse  as 
the  primary  of  baptidzo,  and  dip  as  that  of  bapto.  Dale 
begins  with  ^lian,  A.  D.  third  century. 


He  renders  bapto  dip,  fourteen  times;   dye,  fourteen 
times;  imbue,  seven  times;  temper,  two  times;  smear,  one 


112  BAPTISM. 

time;    stain,   one  time;    wash,  four  times;    moisten,  two 
times;    wet,  one  time — forty -seven. 

Of  these  forty-seven  cases,  as  rendered  by  him,  we  have 

1.  Thirty-three  against  fourteen  for  dip. 

2.  Some  of  these  cases  are  partial  dips,  a  very  slight 
and  not  a  total  penetration  into  the  element  by  the  object 
said  to  be  hapted. 

3.  In  no  case  was  there  an  immersion,  i.  e.  sinhing. 

4.  All  the  oldest  authorities  fail  to  furnish  a  case  of 
dip  or  plunge,  when  Dale  was  seeking  for  proof  of  dip  as 
the  primary  meaning.  We  will  give  his  renderings  of  the 
earliest  occurrences  of  the  word.  In  Homer,  stain,  temper. 
In  ^schylus,  temper.  In  Herodotus,  wash.  In  Aristoph- 
anes, smear,  wash,  dye,  dip.  In  Sophocles,  stain,  temper. 
In  Euripides,  stain.  In  Aristotle,  moisten.  In  Plato,  dye. 
This  is  a  sample,  though  we  may  not  have  counted  as  ac- 
curately as  in  the  other  counts,  where  we  took  greater  pains 
still,  more  being  demanded. 

5.  For  five  hundred  years  after  bapto  appears  no  case 
of  a  literal  dip  occurs,  but  stain,  where  it  is  by  affusion, 
temper,  wash. 

6.  In  the  next  two  hundred  years  dip  appears  as  a 
meaning  only  twice  against  a  large  majority  of  cases 
pointing  to  affusion,  aspersion,  as  the  modes  by  which  the 
objects  were  stained,  moistened,  dyed,  colored,  washed, 
smeared,  etc. 


II.  M.  Stuart's  summary  on  bapto. 

So  strongly  does  Stuart  favor  the  immersionists  in  their 
over-estimation  that  Dr.  J.  R.  Graves,  1856,  published  his 
book  on  baptism,  taunting  the  other  side  that  they  would 
not  publish  it. 


BAPTO    IN    GEEEK   WRITERS.  113 

1.  Of  fifty-six  occnrreiices  in  classic  and  non-Biblical 
usage  he  renders  it  by  dip,  dye,  color,  smear  (Dr.  Carson 
and  other  Baptists  render  it  "  smear"),  thrust,  bathe,  tinct- 
ure, tinge,  plunge,  wash — ten  renderings. 

2.  In  these  fifty-six  cases  he  has  seven  full  dips,  nine 
where  it  was  partial,  not  total — sixteen  for  dip.  This 
gives  forty-nine  against  seven  total  dips,  or  forty  against 
sixteen  for  dip,  partial  and  total.  It  is  forty-nine  against 
seven  plunge — they  doubtful,  very.  There  is  no  immerse. 
He  gives  thirty-three  against  the  sum-total  for  dip  and 
plunge. 

3.  If,  as  our  opponents  assume  at  least  that  current 
usage  determines  the  primary  meaning,  then  dip  is  not  the 
primary  meaning  of  bapto,  and  immerse  does  not  even 
enter  court  with  a  plea.  H.  Stephanus,  though  educated 
under  all  the  prejudices  of  an  education  among  immer- 
sionists,  shows  in  his  great  Thesaurus  that  moisten,  stain, 
paint  (fuco),  prevail  by  great  odds  over  dip  as  a  meaning. 

BAPTO  FROM   ONE   THOUSAND   TO  FIVE   HUNDRED  YEARS 
BEFORE   CHRIST. 

Two  writers  occur  in  this  period  who  use  baj^to  each 
twice. 

Homer,  before  Christ  one  thousand  years,  by  popular 
date,  round  number. 

1.  Batrach  v,  218:  Of  a  frog  pierced  and  slain  in 
battle  he  says,  ^^He  fell  without  even  looking  upward, 
and  the  lake  (ebapteto)  was  tinged  with  blood.'^  *  Here  the 
effusion  of  the  blood  from  the  delicate  veins  of  a  pierced 
frog  is  what  bapted  the  lake.  Small  w^ere  the  drops,  deli- 
cate indeed  was  the  stream  from  such  a  source.     Yet  the 

*  'EfiaTrrero  6'  a'ifxari.  Ic/avjj. 


114  BAl^ISM. 

lake  is  bapted  with  the  affusion  of  the  few  drops  of  blood 
that  spun  out  from  its  veins.  Here,  too,  we  have,  first,  a 
clear  case  of  very  delicate  effusion,  aspersion,  from  bapto. 
Second,  it  shows  how  stain,  color,  tinge,  dye,  came  as  a 
meaning  of  bapto. 

2.  Odyssey  i,  302 :  "  As  when  a  smith  tempers  (bapfei) 
a  hatchet  or  huge  pole-ax  with  cold  water,"  or  "  in  cold 
water. '^  Here  bapto  may  imply  such  a  partial  dip  as  we 
often  witness  in  the  shops  where  smiths  temper  ^'  a  huge 
pole-ax '^  or  a  hatchet.  The  edge  is  slightly  dipped.  But 
from  the  context  this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  allu- 
sion. It  was  more  likely  the  well-known  process  of  put- 
ting some  cold  water  on  the  anvil,  placing  the  ax  or  hatchet 
on  it,  and  striking  a  blow  Avith  the  hammer,  which  makes 
an  explosion  or  report  louder  than  an  ordinary  gun.  This 
is  done  constantly  in  tempering  axes  and  hatchets. 

1.  We  have  in  Homer  no  immerse  for  bapto. 

2.  We  may  barely  have  a  case  of  partial  dip,  but  it  is 
extremely  doubtful. 

3.  More  likely  in  both  cases  it  is  aspersion. 

4.  Any  way,  one  of  them  is  a  clear  case  of  aspersion  in 
this  the  first  known  Greek  author. 


iESCHYLUS  ON  BAPTO,  BORN  FIVE  HUNDEED  AND  TWEN. 
TY-NINE   YEARS   BEFORE    CHRIST. 

1.  "For  the  wife  has  deprived  each  husband  of  lif( 
staining  (bapsasa)  the  sword  by  slaughter.'^  ^  Here  is  a 
case  easily  determined.  It  does  not  say  the  sword  Avas 
plunged  into  some  penetrable  matter — mersed  or  dipped. 
The  sword  is  stained  by  slaughter — bapted  by  the  blood  of 
slain  men  in  whatever  way  cut  down. 
"Premeth,  v,  861. 


BAPTO    IN    GREEK    WRITERS.  115 

2.  The  second  case  is  thus  given :  ^'  This  garment,  stained 
(ebaphaen)  by  the  blood  of  ^gisthus,  is  a  witness  to  me." 

Here  the  blood  spurts  out  from  the  wound  and  be- 
sprinkles or  aifuses  the  garment,  staining  it,  and  witnesses 
of  the  violent  death  of  the  victim. 

1.  Here  again,  in  the  next  writer  we  have  after  Homer 
who  uses  baptOj  bapto  is  used  for  a  clear  case  of  affusion. 

2.  We  see  again  the  mode  of  the  staining,  the  coloring, 
the  tinging,  dyeing  of  bapto. 

3.  Notice  well  that  in  neither  of  the  cases  where  bajjto 
is  used  for  staining  is  it  a  dip.  The  old  process  has  always 
been  to  take  the  latet^  cases  of  bapto  after  it  took  on  the 
later  meanings,  and  where  the  art  of  dyeing  by  dipping 
was  discovered,  or  else  at  least  where  it  from  stain,  color, 
came  to  apply  readily  to  dyeing,  then  to  dyeing  by  any 
mode ;  hence  by  dipping,  then  to  dip  in  any  object,  and 
securing  this  meaning  in  late,  Iron-age  authors  especially, 
they  assume  it  as  the  primary  meaning  and  explain  all  else 
from  that !     Even  Dale  adopts  this  process. 

We  have  now  traced  bapto  through  five  hundred  years. 
It  occurs  four  times.  It  is  doubtful  as  to  mode  in  one 
case.  Three  are  cases  of  effusion  and  affusion.  That  is, 
.the  blood  effused  from  wounds  and  affused  or  stained  the 
objects  besprinkled  or  affused.  Hence  its  primary  mean- 
ing is  readily  determined  by  all  the  established  laws  of 
language — sprinkle. 

BAPTO    FROM    FIVE    HUNDRED    TO    FOUR    HUNDRED  AND 
TWENTY-NINE   YEARS    BEFORE    CHRIST. 

1.  Sophocles,  born  B.C.  495;  "Thou  hast  well  stained 
(ebapsas)  thy  sword  (pros)  by  means  of  [or  with  respect  to] 
the  army  of  the  Greeks."  *     This  is  a  case  like  the  above. 

*  Ajax,  V,  95. 


116  BAPTISM. 

2.  Herodotus,  born  B.C.  484,  in  Euterpe :  (1)  "  Going  to 
the  river  he  washed  (ebapse)  himself."  f  Here  he  washed 
himself,  not  into,  but  at  the  river.  He  simply  went  (epi) 
to  the  river  and  washed.  The  word  himself  is  merely 
added  by  us.  Pharaoh's  daughter  (Ex.  ii,  5)  "washed  her- 
self (epi)  at  the  river.''  We  see  this  was  the  custom  in 
Egypt.  Herodotus  is  here  telling  of  an  Egyptian.  Judith 
(xii,  7)  "  washed  herself — baptized — (epi)  at  the  fountain." 

(2)  '^Colored  garments^'  (bebammena,  i.  e.  bapto).  This 
is  the  first  case  of  the  application  of  bapto  to  garments 
colored  or  dyed  in  the  ordinary  sense,  the  others  being  as 
seen  stained,  sprinkled  with  blood,  or  the  blood  gushed 
out  upon  them.  In  what  way  the  garments  were  colored 
does  not  appear.  Let  us  suppose  it  was  by  dipping  in 
dye.  Then  we  have  these  facts.  Six  hundred  years  before 
this  bapto  applied  to  sprinklings  of  blood,  that  of  course 
stained.  Forty  years  earlier  than  Herodotus  it  is  applied 
to  affusions  of  blood,  staining  the  object  on  which  it  falls. 
Here  we  see  dye  comes  from  stain,  stain  from  effusions, 
from  sprinkle.  From  applications  of  water  come  wash, 
a  very  rare  meaning  of  bapto. 

3.  Euripides,  born  B.C.  480.  Here  is  the  first  case  of 
bapto  clearly  indicating  a  dip^  a  partial  dip  only,  when  a 
pitcher  is  dipped  sufficiently  into  water  to  get  water  and 
immediately  withdrawn.  Hence,  "  Dip  a  vessel  and  bring 
sea-water."  "  Dip  up  Avith  pitchers."  He  uses  it  for  a 
more  violent  dip  still.  His  sounding  sci meter  "he  plunged 
[ebapse)  into  the  flesh."  Here  in  all  cases  notice  the  ob- 
ject dipped  and  the  object  "plunged"  is  immediately  with- 
drawn, our  Avord  "plunge"  not  being  the  exact  equivalent 
of  bapto  even  in  these  cases.  In  later  days  Lycophron 
says,  "  Plunged  his  sword  into  the  viper's  bowels."    Dion- 

t  Bdf  £7r^  Tov  TTorajuov  kOdipe, 


BAPTO    IN    GKEEK    WIIITEES.  117 

ysius  of  Halicarnassus,  ^'Plunge  {ba2:)sas)  his  spear  between 
the  other's  ribs/'  He  '^at  the  same  instant  plunged  his 
into  his  belly.''  In  these,  and  in  all  that  the  strongest 
immersionists  can  produce,  there  is  no  total  immersion. 
Where  the  sword,  the  spear,  the  lance  is  bapted  only  a 
part,  and  in  many  instances  only  a  small  part,  enters  the 
object.  It  is  in  cases  where  the  sword,  the  spear  is  at 
once  withdrawn. 

4.  Aristophanes,  born  about  B.C.  450.  He  uses  bapto 
more  frequently. 

(1)  Speaking  of  Magnes,  an  old  comic  writer  of  Ath- 
ens, he  says,  "Smearing  himself  (baptomenos)  with  frog- 
colored  paints"  {batracheiois). 

(a)  Here  bapto  applies  where  there  is  no  dip,  no  plunge. 
(6)  The  coloring  matter  is  applied  to  the  object  bapted. 
Putting  coloring  matter  on  his  face  bapted  it. 

(2)  "Do  not  adorn  yourself  with  garments  of  varie- 
gated appearance,  colored  (bapton)  at  great  cost."  Here 
the  colors  seemed  to  be  the  effect  of  needle-work,  as  often 
now  occurred,  taking  different  colors  and  working  them 
into  garments,  thus  bapting  them.  Bapto  came  thus  to 
apply  to  nature's  colors,  to  birds  of  color,  precious  stones 
of  beautiful  colors,  etc.     Hence  Aristophanes — 

(3)  Ornis  baptos,  "  a  colored  bird." 

(a)  Dipping,  plunging  is  out  of  the  question  here. 

(6)  The  variegated  plumage  w^as  bapted  thus  as  it  grew. 
Thus  bapto  applies  where  no  mode  is  specially  involved, 
the  coloring  matter  effecting  the  bapted  condition  by  the 
most  delicate  touches.  To  put  it  nicely,  here  bapto  by 
streams  or  parts  of  drops  so  small  that  only  a  microscope 
could  discover  them  to  our  eyes  effected  a  bapted  condi- 
tion. The  birds  and  stones  were  bapted  by  these  delicate 
affusions   and   infusions.      Hence    Greeks,  Hebrev/s,  and 


1 1  8  BAPTISM. 

Arabians  used  these  phrases:    "Sprinkled  with  colors/^ 
"  Sprinkled  with  gray.^'     Again,  Aristophanes — 

(4)  A  bully  speaking  says,  "  Lest  I  stain  you  (bapso) 
with  a  Sardinian  hue  (6om?7ia).'^*  Here  bajpto  occurs 
twice  in  its  diiferent  forms. 

(a)  There  is  no  dip,  no  plunge. 

(6)  The  meaning,  as  all  lexicons  agree,  is,  that  the 
bully  would  strike  the  other  party  on  the  mouth  with  his 
fist,  give  him  a  bloody  mouth  or  nose.  The  blood  issuing 
out  Avould  stain  his  face. 

(c)  Clearly  enough  the  bapto  here  bapted  the  object  by 
affusion. 

(5)  The  next  case  is,  "  First  wash  (baptos)  the  wool  in 
warm  water.^'  While  the  wool  Avould  in  this  case  un- 
doubtedly be  dipped  in  the  water  to  become  saturated 
with  the  water,  yet  the  word  bapto  applies  to  the  process 
of  washing  the  wool,  which  was  effected  by  rubbing  it  in 
the  hands  or  otherwise  while  saturated  with  water.  Mere 
dipping  into  the  warm  water  would  not  wash  the  wool. 

(6)  In  his  day  already  bapto  was  strengthened  by  a 
})reposition  to  make  a  clear  case  of  dip,  en  being  employed 
for  that  purpose. 

In  this  noted  author,  then,  six  times  he  uses  bapto.  In 
not  a  single  case  did  he  use  it  for  dip,  plunge,  immerse. 
To  make  it  mean  dip  he  strengthens  it  by  en,  i.  e.  embapto, 
as  Luke,  the  nearest  to  a  classic  writer  of  all  New  Testa- 
ment writers. 

6.  Hippocrates,  born  B.C.  430.  This  noted  Greek, 
quoted  by  Carson  (Baptist)  says  of  a  dyeing  substance, 
"  When  it  drops  (epitaxce)  upon  the  garments  they  are 
stained  {baptetai),  dyed. 

Notice  now — 

■■■•  Acharn,  act  1,  scene  1. 


BAPTO    IN    GEEEK   WIUTEKS.  119 

1.  We  have  had  no  case  where  a  complete  envelopment 
even  for  a  moment  has  been  effected  by  bapto  from  Ho- 
mer to  Hippocrates. 

2.  Herodotus  used  bapto  for  dyed  or  ^'colored  gar- 
ments/^ but  how  colored  we  did  not  see. 

3.  Hippocrates  gives  us  the  mode,  the  process  by  which 
the  garments  he  names  were  bapted.  The  dyeing  matter 
^^  drops  upon  the  garments/^ 

In  this  way,  by  this  mode_,  "they  are  dyed"  {baptetai). 
Is  there  controversy  over  the  mode  of  this  bapting?  Yet 
immersionists  tell  us  dyeing,  coloring,  is  always  by  dip- 
ping. Justice  requires  that  we  say  Dr.  Carson  is  an  ex- 
ception, and  admits  it  is  effected  by  sprinkling,  but  thinks 
bapto  primarily  meant  dip,  then  dye  by  dipping,  then  dye 
by  any  mode.  But  he,  as  all  the  rest,  never  took  the 
matter  up  chronologically,  but  selected  nearly  all  his 
proof-texts  as  Campbell,  Dale,  Gale,  etc.  do  from  later 
and  Iron-age  Greek,  then  explains  the  early  use  from  the 
later !  No  scholar  will  now  call  that  science  or  philology 
or  good  sense. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  period  from  Homer  to 
Plato,  who  comes  next.  In  all  these  periods  of  six  hun- 
dred years  among  the  most  illustrious  writers  Greece 
ever  produced,  we  find  the  following  exhibit: 

1.  Not  once  does  bajdo  mean  immerse,  i.  e.  sink. 

2.  Not  once  does  it  totally  dip  the  whole  object. 

3.  Only  three  times  do  we  find  it  for  a  partial  dip. 

4.  I7i  no  instance  does  it  apply  to,  or  desci^ibe  the  act  per- 
formed by  Baptists  when  they  baptize. 

5.  It  frequently  applies  to  the  mode  of  those  ivho  baptize 
by  affusion,  and  to  the  exact  mode,  effusion,  aspersion,  though 
not  any  single,  exclusive  mode,  and  the  application  in 
any  decent  mode  is  what  we  require  in  baptism. 


120  BAPTISM. 

6.  The  prevailing  action  or  mode  involved  in  hajpto  as 
yet  is  aspersion,  effusion,  affasion. 

7.  The  primary  force  of  the  word  is  aspersion. 

BAPTO  FROM  PLATO  TO  ARISTOTLE,  ETC. 

1.  Plato,  born  B.C.  429,  uses  bapto  repeatedly,  and  uses 
it  for  dye  and  dip,  and  as  we  promptly  grant  this  we  need 
not  quote  passages. 

2.  Alcibiades,  born  B.C.  400,  alluding  to  the  offensive 
and  opprobrious  epithets  applied  to  him  by  a  comedian  in 
the  play  called  Baptae,  says,  '^  You  aspersed  (bapjtes)  me 
[Avith  the  abusive  epithets]  in  your  play.^^ 

(1)  Here  hapto  is  used  by  both  parties — the  one  call- 
ing his  play  Baptae,  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  applying 
hapto  to  speech. 

(2)  All  metaphorical  use  is  based  on  a  prior  literal  use 
of  words,  as  no  one  will  question. 

(3)  In  Greek,  as  Ave  see  elsewhere,  and  elaborately, 
and  in  Arabic,  in  Latin,  and  in  English,  abuse  is  repre- 
sented by  words  meaning  to  sprinkle  and  to  pour  con- 
stantly. '^  Foul  aspersion/'  "  base  aspersion,"  is  a  com- 
mon English  phrase.  ''Pour  abuse  upon''  is  another. 
We  never  say  that  we  ''dip  a  man  in  abuse,"  "plunge 
him  into  abuse." 

(4)  Here  is,  therefore,  a  clear  use  of  hajAo  by  both 
parties,  and  by  Greek  comedians  generally,  that  show 
s]>rinkle  to  be  the  primary  meaning  of  hapto.  And  the 
writer  uses  the  words  "  streams  more  bitter,"  as  the  means 
with  which  he,  in  a  volley  of  words,  would  haptize  him, 
not  merely  hapt  him. 

3.  The  great  Aristotle,  born  B.C.  384,  comes  next  in 
chronological  order  as  using  the  word.     He  uses  the  word 


BAPTO    IN    GREEK   WRITERS.  121 

where  there  is  a  partial  dip,  and  where  also  objects  are  col- 
ored, and  where  dyeing  is  by  dipping.  Then  also  thus, 
speaking  of  a  dyeing  substance:  "Being  pressed,  it  moist- 
ens {baptei)  and  dyes  (anthidei)  the  hand.^^ 

(1)  There  is  no  dip,  plunge,  immerse  here. 

(2)  Like  nearly  all  the  cases  cited,  it  is  a  literal  use  of 
bapto,  not  a  metaphorical  one. 

(3)  The  fluid  came  out  upon  the  hand — effusion,  was 
the  literal  mode  by  which  the  object  was  moistened. 

(4)  It  is  such  a  delicate  effusion  that  it  merely  moist- 
ens the  hand. 

(5)  The  effect  of  its  being  coloring  matter  that  was 
pressed  was  to  dye  or  stain  the  hand;  and  bajjto  does  not 
express  that,  but  anthidzo  does,  which  primarily  applies  to 
sprinklings.  See  the  word  and  the  lexicons  on  it  in  the 
next  chapter.  Anthidzo  is  defined  "to  sprinkle,^'  "stain,'' 
"  color,"  "  strew  with  flowers,''  "  paint." 

4.  Diodorus  Siculus,  B.C.  69-30:  "Coats  (baptais)  col- 
ored and  flowered  with  various  colors."  "Native  warmth 
has  tinged  {ebapsen)  the  above  varieties  of  the  growth  of 
things  [i.e. birds,  precious  stones,  etc.]  before  mentioned."^ 

Omitting  dates  now,  the  v/riters  of  this  period  speak 
on  this  wise.  Plutarch,  vi,  p.  680  :  "Then  perceiving  that 
his  beard  was  colored  {baptomenon)  and  his  head."  ^lian  : 
"The  Indians  dyed  (baptontai)  their  beards."  Marcus 
Anton ius  speaks  of  the  soul  tinged  (baptetai)  by  the 
thoughts.  "Tinge  (bapto)  it,  then,  by  accustoming  your- 
self to  such  thoughts." 

Here  still  bapto  continues  to  be  used  where, 

1.  Tiiere  is  no  dip,  plunge,  and  immerse  is  never  a 
meaning  of  the  word. 

2.  It  is  applied  where  the  coloring  matter  is  applied  to 

*Tom.  iii,  315;  xi,  119. 


122  BAPTISM. 

the  hair,  to  the  beard,  and  in  many  cases  to  the  cheeks, 
the  eyes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  priests  of  Cotytto,  given 
elsewhere. 

3.  In  only  two  cases  yet  have  we  found  it  applied  to 
simple  water,  and  no  immersion  was  found ;  and  we  have 
come  down  to  the  period  after  Christ. 

BAPTO    IN    DANIEL. 

In  the  Greek  version  by  Theodotian,  second  century 
after  Christ,  hapto  occurs  several  times,  as  follows: 

1.  Daniel  iv,  33 :  ^^And  his  body  was  wet  (ehaptae)  with 
the  dew  {apo)  from  heaven.'^ 

2.  Daniel  v,  21 :  '^And  his  body  was  wet  {ehaptae)  with 
the  dew  {apo)  from  heaven.     Here, 

(1)  Nebuchadnezzar's  body  was  bapted  with  the  falling 
dew — a  clear  case  of  gentle  affusion. 

(2)  It  is  a  case  where  water  pure  is  the  element,  not 
bloojd  or  coloring  matter,  paint,  etc.,  as  so  often  we  found. 

(3)  To  parade,  as  Gale,  Carson,  and  others  do  the  co- 
pious dews  of  that  country,  is  simply  ridiculous.  What 
do  we  care  for  the  copious  fall  of  dew?  Was  his  body 
dipped  into  it,  covered  up  by  the  process,  or  did  the  '^co- 
pious dew"  fall  upon  him  ^^from  heaven ''? 

(4)  Jerome  and  other  ancient  Avriters  translate  two  of 
these  passages  by  ^' sprinkled'^  with  the  dew  of  heaven."* 
(Dan.  iv,  20). 

(5)  The  Arabic  translates  it  sprinkled.  The  Latin 
version  in  Walton  on  Daniel  v,  21,  perfusam,  ^^  sprinkled 
'with  the  dew  of  heaven." 

''^ Conspergatur  and  infunderis,  sprinkled,  besprinkled.  Chaldee,  chap, 
iv.  21,  ^r??*!  ^*5?  ''??"' ;  Vulgate,  Et  rore  cceli  conspergatur,  v.  22, 
Chal.  ■  I  - '.  from  th'^  dew:    i  ''-ri."".  mfanrhTis. 


BAPTO    IN    GREEK    WRITERS.  123 

(6)  Tlie  Latin  version  in  Origen's  works  renders  Dan- 
iel iv,  22  (bapto^^  in  Greek),  by  ''his  body  shall  be  sprin- 
kled with  the  dew  of  heaven"  (chap.  iv). 


BAPTO   IN   NEW  TESTA:^[ENT   AND   SEPTUAGINT. 

Bapto  occurs  three  times  in  the  New  Testament,  emhapto 
twice.    Of  these  three  cases 

1.  Two  are  very  partial,  very  slight  dips  for  the  pur- 
pose of  moistening  the  object.  It  is  simply  one  case  re- 
ported by  the  writers  Matthew  (xxvi,  23),  John  (xiii,  26), 
Mark  (xiv,-  20) — '^  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  in  the 
dish  ;'^  ^'  I  shall  give  a  sop  [morsel]  when  I  have  dipped 
it;"  ^^And  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop" — morsel. j  As 
Luke  uses  emhapto  in  the  dip  of  the  tip  of  the  finger  in 
the  case  of  Lazarus,  it  being  compounded  with  a  strength- 
ening word  en,  it  does  not  come  in  for  discussion,  though 
we  do  not  object  to  it  on  any  other  ground,  of  course. 

These  may  all  be  held,  then,  as  just  one  case  in  the  New 
Testament  where  hapto  is  used. 

1.  In  this  case  no  immersion  occurs. 

2.  No  plunge  occurs. 

3.  The  dip  was  only  a  touching  of  the  morsel  of  food 
to  the  element  to  moisten  it  for  eating. 

The  other  case  is  Revelation  xix,  13,  ^^And  he  was 
clothed  with  a  vesture  [garment]  (bebammenon)  sprinkled 
with  blood."     In  our  version  the  immersionist  translators 

*  Greek  to  aufid  aov  (ia^rjcErat,  et  de  Tore  coeli  corpus  tuum  aspergetur. 

tin  Exodus  xii,  22;  Leviticus  xiv,  16,  51;  iv,  17;  ix,  9,  etc.,  hapio 
occurs  in  the  Greek  version  made  third  century  before  Christ.  1.  In 
no  case  was  it  immersion.  2.  In  most  cases  the  object  was  merely 
touched  to  or  by  the  bapting  fluid.  3.  In  no  case  was  there  envelop- 
ment.    We  will  examine  the  cases  under  the  Hebrew  tabhal,  which  see. 


124  BAPTISM. 

of  James  render  it  ^Mipped  in  blood."     How  untrue  and 
absurd ! 

1.  The  Syriac  renders  this  case  by  ^'sprinkle/'  That 
part  of  the  Peshito  was  made  later  than  the  rest,  yet  by 
the  close  of  the  second  century  or  dawn  of  the  third. 

2.  The  old  Itala,  made  undoubtedly  by  the  close  of  the 
apostolic  age,  renders  hapto  here  by  "  sprinkle'^ — aspersa. 

3.  The  Coptic,  third  century,  translates  it  "sprinkle." 

4.  The  Basmuric,  third  century,  renders  it  "sprinkle." 

5.  The  Sahidic,  second  century,  renders  it  "  sprinkle." 

6.  The  ^thiopic,  fourth  century,  renders  it  "sprinkle." 

7.  The  Lutheran,  sixteenth  century,  renders  it  "sprin- 
kle" {besprcnrjt). 

8.  The  Lusitanian  has  it  "  sprinkle"  (salpacado). 

9.  Bapto  is  translated  sprinJde  by  the  learned  Greek, 
Iren^eus,  born  by  common  chronology  four  years  before 
John  the  Apostle's  death;  some  put  it  later.  Irenseus 
was  bishop  of  Lyons  and  a  great  defender  of  the  purity 
of  the  church.  He  cites  Revelation  xix,  13,  where  in  the 
Greek  it  is  bapto — hehammenon  —  and  translates  it,  "And 
he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  sprinkled  with  blood."* 

10.  Origen,  the  most  learned  father  and  commentator 
the  world  produced  in  sixteen  hundred  years,  born  some 
eighty-six  years  after  John's  death,  translates  hapto,  in 
the  same  passage,  "  SPRiXKLEDf  with  blood." 

11.  Hippolytus,  the  learned  Greek  archbishop,  a.d. 
220,  copies  the  common  reading  of  Revelation  xix,  13, 
hapto,  thus :  "And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  [heham- 
menon—  hapted,  in  our  version  dipj)ed~\  in  blood,"  and 
adds  "  See,  then,  brethren,  how  the  vesture,  speinkled 
with  blood,  denoted,"  etc.J 

*  Against  Heresies,  b.  iv,  chap.  20 ;  c.  xi. 
t  EppavTia/xhov,  errantis'tnenon. 
±  Atrainr-t  Nnotii:;.  ol-iaT).  xv. 


BAPTO    IN    GREEK    V/RITERS.  125 

12.  The  oldest  and  best  copy  of  the  Bible  in  the  world, 
Tischendorff's  manuscript^  made  about  A.  D.  325,  trans- 
lates it  besprinkled^^  thus :  '^And  he  was  clothed  with  a 
vesture  besprinkled  with  blood/'f 

In  the  light  of  these  records  we  see  the  following  facts 
made  patent : 

1.  That  many  lexicons,  being  deeply  steeped  in  immer- 
sion prejudices,  selected  their  texts  on  bapto  from  the  few 
cases,  mostly  in  Dark-age  Greek,  where  it  also  meant  dip, 
stain,  dye,  and  gave  not  one  of  those  cases  which  we  have 
presented  above. 

2.  The  utter  unreliability  of  the  parties  who  tell  us 
that  bapto  always  means  to  dip,  immerse,  etc. 

3.  That  from  the  earliest  use  of  the  word  it  applied  to 
sprinklings,  even  the  most  partial  and  delicate,  and  con- 
tinued to  be  so  applied  in  later  Greek. 

4.  That  it  constantly  applied  to  effusions,  to  cases 
"  merely  touched  in  part  or  in  whole,"  by  the  fluid. 

5.  That  sprinkle  was  the  primary  import  of  the  word. 

6.  That  dip  is  a  late  and  a  derived  meaning. 

*  TiepipEpafihov,  perireramenon^  besprinkled. 

t  To  those  who  seek  to  evade  the  force  of  this  by  saying  as  Gale  did, 
when  it  was  only  known  that  Origen  thus  rendered  it  till  we  brought 
out  the  rest,  that  Origen  had  a  copy  (codex)  with  sprinkle  in  it,  which 
A.  Campbell  indorsed  in  the  Rice  debate,  and  Tischendorff's  being 
found  with  besprinkled  in  it,  and  that  Origen  merely  copied  that,  we 
reply:  1.  Tischendorff's  MS.  dates  about  one  himdred  and  ten  years 
later  than  Origen — how  could  Origen  copy  him?  2.  Irenasus  so  trans- 
lated it  long  before  Origen  did,  3.  Origen's  was  not  copied  from  Tisch- 
endorfP's  copy,  for  it  has  the  \oord  different — one  is  crraniismeyion,  the 
oi\\QV  2)erireramenon ;  very  different  in  form — one  raino,  other  raniidzo; 
and  a  compounded  word.     4.  Hippolytus  cojnes  hapto,  then  translates  it. 


126  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Bapto — Primary  Meaning  Continued. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  root  of  baptklzo  should  mean, 
in  addition  to  sprinkle,  moisten,  imbue,  wash;  also  to 
stain,  color,  dye.  It  seems  more  so  when  we  learn  that 
the  leading  Avord  in  use  among  Latin  Christians  of  the 
earliest  ages — Tertullian,  Cyprian,  etc. — for  baptize,  when 
not  using  by  transfer  the  word  itself,  was  ^'  tingo,''  which 
primarily  means  to  moisten,  make  wet,  where  it  is  by 
tears,  by  dcAV,  drops  of  liquid,  etc.,  yet  comes  to  mean 
to  stain,  color,  dye,  dip.  Tahhal  (in  Hebrew,  baptize) 
means  to  stain,  but  rarely ;  while  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
tzeva — baptize — means  to  stain,  to  dye,  or  color,  and  applies 
to  colored  birds,  animals,  etc.  It  will  be  seen  that  all 
these  words,  save  tingo,  mean  primarily  to  sprinkle,  to 
shed  or  pour  forth,  applied  to  liquids;  they  mean  also  to 
moisten,  make  wet. 

From  this  substantial  agreement  of  all  these  words  in 
meaning — defined  alike  by  lexicons  generally,  vindicated 
by  an  inspection  of  original  sources — we  have  a  clue,  a 
key  to  some  great  and  essential  philological  principles. 
By  these  we  can  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion. 

We  have  examined  bapto  from  the  standpoint  of  sci- 
entific investigation.  We  saw  sprinkle  as  the  primary 
force  of  bapto.  In  a  future  chapter  we  will  see  a  great 
number  of  words  primarily  meaning  to  sprinkle  coming 


BAPTO — PRIMARY    MEANING    CONTINUED.  ]27 

to  mean  all  that  bapto  means  and  lapping  over  all  that 
baptidzo  means.  Let  us  here  trace  the  process  by  which 
all  these  meanings  are  derived  from  bapto.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  6ap^o  appears  in  Greek  literature  as 
early  as  Homer  but  only  a  very  few  times  in  centuries, 
being  a  rare  word;  that  baptidzo  does  not  appear  for 
quite  five  hundred  years  later,  the  incautious  writer,  like 
Ingham,  not  telling  the  reader  that  the  Orpheus,  ^sop, 
etc.  he  quotes  are  spurious  and  of  a  late  date.  Conant 
shows  that  fact.  We  have  it  demonstrated  from  the  in- 
spection of  cases  and  dates  that  bapto  applied  to  cases  of 
affusion,  eifusion,  many  centuries  before  it  meant  dye.  It 
meant  to  stain  centuries  before  it  meant  to  dye.  It  meant 
to  wash  as  early  as  it  meant  to  color  in  any  way  beyond 
a  stain  effected  by  slight  aspersion.  These  being  historic 
facts  are  way-marks  to  help  us. 

BAPTO   AND    PHILOLOGY. 

Now,  no  one  believes  that  the  art  of  dyeing  was  sud- 
denly invented  and  practiced.  Such  arts  are  always  the 
result  of  accidental  discovery  from  seeing  the  effects  of 
the  elements  in  nature.  Though  many  saw  apples  fall 
and  tea-kettles  boil  and  lift  their  coverings,  it  was  centu- 
ries before  a  Newton  applied  the  suggestions  of  the  one 
or  a  Watt  or  Fulton  the  power  of  the  other. 

A  person  from  breaking  or  bruising  a  weed,  herb,  or 
shell  that  had  coloring  matter  in  it ;  from  an  incision  in 
the  bark  of  a  tree  causing  a  spurting  out  of  juice,  sap ; 
from  bursting  a  grape  or  berry  on  the  hands  or  clothes, 
Avould  thus  earliest  discover  the  staining  qualities  of  the 
attaching  liquid.  Seeing  the  effects,  it  might  be  such  a 
color   as  would   please   some   parties  very  much,  and   it 


128  BAPTISM. 

would  be  natural  to  go  to  work  to  apply  the  matter  to 
color  their  faces,  beard,  hair,  or  garments.  Baj)to  applies 
earlier  to  staining  by  centuries,  we  saw,  than  by  dyeing. 
When  they  had  used  it  thus  for  a  time  it  would  sooner  or 
later  turn  out  that  parties  would  extend  the  discovery, 
and  get  enough  of  the  coloring  element  to  prepare  orna- 
ments, adorn  their  clothes,  and  finally  dilute  the  coloring 
matter  in  water,  or  collect  enough  to  dye  their  garments. 
They  would  learn  to  dip  the  garments;  first  no  doubt 
parts  of  it  in  one  dye,  parts  in  another,  so  as  to  have  the 
"variegated  garments,"  or,  as  in  some  cases,  resort  to 
needle-work.  Whatever  the  word  applied  to  the  first 
stain,  where  it  was  by  the  slightest  aspersion  or  dropping 
of  the  matter,  it  would  remain  the  word  through  all  the 
varying  fortunes  of  the  art.  In  the  case  under  consider- 
ation BAPTO  was  the  word.  It  must  not  be  supposed  that 
hapto  was  the  favorite  word.  As  late  as  the  fourth  ceji- 
tury  before  Christ  that  learned  and  careful  writer,  Aris- 
totle, when  speaking  of  the  dyeing  substance  even,  does 
not  use  hapto  for  dye  but  for  moisten — if  pressed  "  it  moist- 
ens {hapto)  and  colors  (anthidzci)  the  hand" — showing 
that  hapto  represented  moisten  of  the  slightest  kind  much 
more  correctly  than  color  or  dye.  That  speaks  volumes. 
It  demonstrates  additionally  from  the  historic  order  that 
color,  dye,  is  derived,  and  derived  from  it  as  meaning  to 
moisten,  not  from  to  dip.  Thus  history,  philology,  and 
common  observation  all  harmonize.  All  the  historic  light 
we  have  sustains  these  facts.  The  earliest  colorings  we 
read  of,  save  one  or  two  soon  to  be  noticed,  occur  in  Exo- 
dus XXV,  4;  xxvi,  7,  31,  36,  etc.,  which  were  purple. 
The  Scriptures  give  no  light  whence  these  colors  came. 
1  Maccabees  iv,  23,  calls  them  "purple  (apo)  from  the 
sea."     It  is  ao^reed  that  the  colors  were  obtained  "  from 


BAPTO — PRIMARY    MEANING   CONTINUED.  121) 

the  juice  of  certain  species  of  the  shell-fish ^^  (Kitto). 
^'The  majority'^  of  ancients  ascribe  the  discovery  ^'to  the 
Tyrian  Hercules,  whose  dog,  it  is  said,  instigated  by  hun- 
ger, broke  a  certain  kind  of  shell-fish  on  the  coast  of  Tyre, 
and  his  mouth  becoming  stained  of  a  beautiful  color,  his 
master  was  induced  to  try  its  properties  on  wool,  and  gave 
his  first  specimens  to  the  king,  who  admired  the  color  so 
much  that  he  restricted  the  use  of  it  by  law  to  the  royal 
garments/^*  The  Tyrians  practiced  coloring  thus  for 
ages.  As  the  Hebrews,  Syrians,  Arabians,  and  Chaldeans 
were  all  of  kindred  blood,  language,  and  habit,  their  hab- 
its of  coloring  most  likely  began  there.  It  is  worth  note 
that  one  of  the  leading  words  for  baptize  in  Arabic,  occur- 
ring often  in  the  New  Testament  (tsava-tsevagha)  in  its 
noun-form,  means  the  juice  of  a  vine.  But  all  this  aside, 
we  prefer  and  rely  on  the  development  and  science  of 
language,  along  with  the  record  of  facts. 

Facts  now.  First,  bapto  applied  to  sprinkling,  to  effu- 
sions. This  was  its  first  primary  force.  Second,  it  meant, 
consequently,  both  to  moisten  and  stain;  for  to  sprinkle 
or  effuse  with  staining  elements,  blood,  juices,  etc.,  both 
moisten  and  stain  result.  Yet  it  does  not  necessarily  ap- 
ply to  staining;  it  always  implies  moistening  or  wetting. 
It  may  be  assumed  that  there  is  no  case  of  bapto,  a  verb, 
without  moisten.  This  is  the  only  meaning  or  idea  that 
never  forsakes  it  in  a  single  instance.  Third,  it  never 
means  to  dye  where  it  is  by  dipping  till  the  last  half  of 
the  fourth  century  before  Christ,  so  far  as  facts  go.  Its 
corresponding  Hebrew  tabhal,  in  earlier  Hebrew  only  cor- 
responding, the  stain — molunein,  in  Greek ;  tingo,  Latin ; 
tabhal,  Hebrew — is  even  in  Genesis  xxxvii,  31,  better  ren- 
dered with  the  Syriac  sprinkled. 

•■••  Pollox  Onom.,  i,  4;  Kitto,  sub.  v,  purple. 


l;30  BAPTISM. 

Now  haptidzo  is  a  derivative  of  hajAo.  Wlien  was  it 
formed — when  first  used?  We  can  no  more  tell  than  we 
can  as  to  hapto.  Like  hapto  it  was  but  seldom  used.  It 
first  appears  in  a  writer  of  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
before  Christ.  Immersionists  all  assert  that  baptidzo  de- 
rives the  primary  meaning  of  hapto,  but  not  the  derived 
meanings  (see  A.  Campbell,  pp.  119,  120,  Carson,  etc.,  etc.) 
or  figurative  meanings  of  bapto.  That  will  do  us  very 
well.  But  truth,  and  philology  as  its  aid,  we  want.  Bap- 
tidzo comes  into  use  in  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  we 
know.  But  bapjto  never  meant  dye  nor  applied  to  dyeing 
by  dipping  till  Plato  and  Aristotle,  so  far  as  records  go. 
It  never  applied  to  colored  clothes  till  a  hundred  years  after 
baptidzo  appears  in  literature.  Baptidzo  not  only  antedates 
dye  as  a  meaning  of  bapto,  but  dip,  even  a  partial  dip,  as 
a  meaning  by  a  century. 

When  baptidzo  took  its  departure  from  bapto,  it  carried 
no  stain,  no  dip,  no  dye  with  it.  All  agree  that  baptidzo 
never  means  to  stain,  color,  paint,  or  dye.  Drs.  Gale,  Car- 
son, Stuart,  A.  Campbell,  etc.,  etc.  dwell  on  this  marked 
difference  between  the  two  words.  Indeed  they  all  make 
that  the  only  diiference.  In  that  they  greatly  err,  but  we 
have  no  interest  in  that  here."'' 

Now  the  facts  we  have  adduced  account  for  the  whole 
])henomena,  so  inexplicable  to  philologists.  Had  baptidzo 
been  derived — been  an  extension  of  bapto — an  intensifica- 
tion or  frequentative  of  it  after  bapto  meant  stain,  color, 
dye  (Liddell  &  Scott,  A.  Campbell,  etc.),  or  put  the  object 
into  the  condition  indicated  by  the  root  bapto  (Kiihner, 
etc.),  then  baptidzo  would  have  meant  all  that  bapto  does, 
only  perhaps  much  intensified.  All  know  and  agree  that 
this  is  not  the  case. 

"•••  Dr.  J.  E.  Graves,  since  the  above  was  written,  over  and  again 
n(>!e«?  the  5UMU'  iMft  in  llie  Carrolltoil  debate. 


BAPTO — PRIMARY    MEANING    CONTINUED.  13J 

But  supposing  baptidzo  to  have  been  formed  long  be- 
fore it  appears  in  the  literature  that  has  survived,  as  we 
know  it  did  (for  it  first  appears  in  a  highly  figurative  form 
in  all  its  earliest  occurrences,  Pindar,  Aristophanes,  Plato, 
Demosthenes  pointing  to  an  earlier  literal  meaning  long 
in  use),  we  can  see  why  it  never  means  color,  stain,  dye. 
It  was  formed  as  an  intensive  from  bajyto  when  baj^to  had 
but  one  meaning — to  sprinlde.  When  we  come  to  exam- 
ine baptidzo  philologically  this  will  appear  with  over- 
whelming force.  It  w^as  when  bapto  meant  no  more  than 
sprinkle  that  baptidzo  was  formed.  Let  any  one  examine 
the  passages  where  bapto  occurs  throughout  all  ages,  espe- 
cially for  one  thousand  years  from  Homer  to  Clirist,  then 
baptidzo — the  difference  in  use  is  almost  infinite.  The  one, 
bapto,  constantly  occurs  in  respect  to  a  slight  contact, 
especially  the  element  generally  applied  is  small.  It  nev- 
er applies  to  bapting  wdth  great  billows,  waves  of  stormy 
seas,  wars,  and  calamities,  etc.,  etc.  It  even  appears  in 
contrast  with  baptidzo,  sometimes  both  in  classics  and  the 
Greek  fathers.  Yet  at  times  both  words  apply  to  one  and 
the  same  kind  of  operation  late  in  their  history,  not  early. 
We  refer  to  cases  where  each  equally  applies  to  cutting  or 
piercing  with  a  sword.  Both  are  so  used,  and  we  present 
a  number  of  cases.  Baptidzo  implies  a  more  copious  af- 
fusion primarily  than  bapto.  Hence  we  Avill  see  it  much 
more  naturally  coming  to  mean  to  ivash,  as  the  effect  of 
descending  water,  then  also  overflow,  overwhelm,  and  from 
thence  to  sink.  Hence,  really  we  will  find  that  baptidzo 
never  means  to  dip  at  all,  but  sink,  immergo,  when  it  does 
put  the  object  into  or  under  the  element. 

On  the  contrary,  neither  A.  Campbell,  Carson,  Gale, 
nor  Stuart  ever  found  an  example  where  bapto  meant  im- 
merse.    They  can't  find  an   example  of  baptidzo  mean- 


132  BAPTISM. 

ing  to  dip  in  any  true  sense  of  the  word  in  classic  usage. 
We  named  the  fact  parenthetically  that  baptidzo  first  ap- 
pears in  a  highly  metaphorical  form.  This  will  appear 
when  we  come  to  the  word.  This  points  to  long  use  when 
it  had  its  proper  literal  meaning.  Both  chronology  and 
philology  show  clearly  that  baptidzo  was  in  use  before  bapto 
took  on  the  later  meanings,  dip  and  dye;  the  dip  being 
derived  from  dye,  not  dye  from  dip ;  the  dye  from  color, 
stain ;  that  from  moisten,  sprinkle. 

Herein  we  see  clearly  why  6ap^o  at  times  means  to  dip 
simply,  but  does  not  apply  to  immerse,  a  slight  contact  with 
the  element  being  its  general  later  use ;  whereas  baptidzo 
being  primarily  intensified,  a  stronger  form,  implying  in- 
tenser  force,  early  passed  over  into  pour,  that  into  wash; 
also  into  overflow,  overwhelm  literally  and  metaphorically ; 
thence  from  overwhelming  and  overflowing — burdening 
by  such  heavy  afl'usions — sink  was  taken  on.  Plence  it  can 
not  mean  dip — never  means  dip.  A  careful  examination 
of  the  few  passages  in  classics  will  show  this,  the  strongest 
case  being  one  in  Plutarch,  but  clearly  baptidzo  (ek)  there 
does  not  apply  to  dipping,  but  to  drinking — becoming  in- 
toxicated out  of  the  wine-jars,  etc.  If  dye  is  derived  from 
dip,  as  immerslonists  all  assume,  and  baptidzo  inherits 
^^dip"  as  the  primary  meaning  of  bapto,  why  did  not  bap- 
tidzo mean  dye  also?  If  dye  comes  from  dip,  why  does 
not  dupto,  dip,  and  kolumbao,  dip,  immerse,  mean  dye? 
And  if  dip  and  immerse  are  "synonymous,"  why  do  not 
the  Greek  verbs  buthldzo,  katapontidzo,  kataduo,  which  defi- 
nitely mean  to  immerse,  and  Hebrew  tabha,  immerse, 
mean  to  dye,  stain,  color — have  the  real  meanings  of  tingo 
and  of  dip  also?* 

"•••  Since  the  above  was  written,  several  years  ago,  1870-72,  the  Graves- 
Ditzler  dehate  ocenrrefl.  and  Dr.  G.  says,  page  322,  "As  fingo  once  pri- 


BAPTO — PRIMARY   MEANING  CONTINUED.  133 

In  a  future  chapter  the  mass  of  facts  will  be  presented 
and  the  science  of  philology  applied,  putting  all  beyond 
a  doubt,  and,  like  the  full-orbed  sun  scattering  the  mists 
and  shadows  of  night,  the  dark  night  of  false  philology 
and  assumption  will  be  dissipated  before  the  dawning  of  a 
better  day. 

IS   STAIN,  DYE,  FROM    DIP? 

As  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  323),  since  all  our  facts  were 
written,  reiterates  the  old  theory,  not  giving  a  word  of 
proof,  about  dye,  color,  coming  from  dip,  we  now  further 
add,  in  demonstration  of  our  philological  position,  the 
Avords  that  generally  mean  to  stain,  color,  dye — meanings 
all  agree  to  give  to  the  root  hapto — and  see  if  color,  stain, 
dye  came  from  dip,  as  has  been  universally  assumed  by 
immersionists,  admitted  by  too  many  of  their  opponents. 

1.  Moluno.  Stephanus  says,  quoting  another,  its  "prim- 
itive meaning  is  to  sprinkle."*  Yet  Liddell  &  Scott 
define  it  "to  stain,  sully,  defile,  to  sprinkle." 

Groves :  "  To  dye,  stain,  discolor,  tinge,"  etc. 

2.  Tenggo  {rsyyajy  Liddell  &  Scott :  "  To  wet,  moisten,  to 
bedew  with,  esp[ecially]  with  tears  (dakrusi),  to  wash,  to  shed 
tears.  Ombros  etengeto,  a  shower  fell.  (2)  To  soften  (prop- 
erly by  soaking,  bathing,  etc.).  (3)  To  dye,  stain;  Latin, 
tingere.^'     "Dye,  stain,"  he  puts  as  derived  meanings. 

Groves:  Tengo,  to  moisten,  wet,  water,  sprinkle,  be- 
dew, to    soften,  soak,   steep,   relax,   to  tinge,  dye,  stain, 

marily  meant  to  dip ;  second,  to  dye,  now  it  has  lost  its  first,  and  its 
secondary  has  become  its  primary"  signification.  It  is  difficult  to  say 
what  this  means,  but  it  shows  confusion  worse  confounded,  under  only 
a  few  of  the  above  facts.  On  page  323  he  reiterates  all  the  old  jargon 
about  "  dye  "  from  dip,  but  not  a  fact,  text,  or  argument  offered  ! 

*■  Adspergere. 


134  BAPTISM. 

color,  etc.     So  Donnegan,  Pickering,  Dunbar,  Pape,  Pas- 
sow,  etc. 

3.  Palasso.  Liddell  &  Scott:  '^To  besprinkle,  to  stain, 
befoul,  defile.'^  The  staining,  defiling,  was  from  sprinkling 
blood,  etc.,  etc. 

4.  Anthidzo,  to  sprinkle.*  Liddell  &  Scott :  "  To  strew 
with  flowers,  to  deck  as  with  flowers,  and  so  to  dye  or 
stain  with  colors.  Passive,  to  bloom,  to  be  dyed  or  paint- 
ed, sprinkled  with  white,  browned.'' 

Groves :  "  To  bud,  blossom,  etc.,  to  strew  with  flowers, 
to  color,  tinge,t  dye.'^ 

5.  Chraino.  Liddell  &  Scott :  ^'To  touch  slightly.  Hence 
to  smear,  to  paint,  to  besmear,  to  anoint,  to  stain,  spot,  to 
defile/' 

Groves:  ^'To  color,  dye,  stain,  smear,  daub,  paint,"  etc. 

6.  3Iialno:  "To  paint  over,  to  stain,  dye,  defile,  soiP 
(Liddell  &  Scott). 

Groves:  "To  stain,  dye,  color,  to  polish,  defile,"  etc. 

7.  Chrodzo:  "To  touch  the  surface  of  the  body;  gener- 
ally to  touch,  to  impart  by  touching  the  surface;  hence  to 
tinge,  t  stain,"  etc.  (Liddell  &  Scott). 

Groves:  "To  color,  paint,  tinge,t  dye,  stain',"  etc. 
Chrotidzo:  "To  color,  dye,  tint"  f  (Liddell  &  Scott). 

8.  Spilo:  "To  stain,  soil"  (Liddell  &  Scott). 
Graves:  "To  spot,  stain,  blot,  defile." 

9.  Deuo:  "To  wet,  water,  moisten,  bedew,  sprinkle,  to 
tinge,t  dye,  color,  to  soak,  soften"  (Groves). 

Stephanus:  "To  wet,  moisten,  imbue,  stain  (tingo),t 
pour,  besprinkle,  infect,  stain,  baphaeus.^' 

10.  Poluno:   "To    strew,  scatter  upon,  to  besprinkle, 

*  Stephanas  ,  .  .  adspergo. 

t  Notice  here  how  often  tinr/e,  tint,  is  used  ;  tmr/o  where  the  processes 
or  modes  arc  by  sprinkle,  touch,  etc.,  and  not  dip. 


BAPTO — PEIMAKY    MEANING   CONTINUED.  135 

snow  sprinkled  the  fields,  to  sprinkle  with  flour"  (Lid- 
dell  &  Scott). 

Here  now  are  ten  words,  counting  chrotidzo  as  one,  not 
one  of  which  ever  had  dip  as  a  primary  or  general  mean- 
ing. Every  one  accomplished  the  coloring,  staining,  ting- 
ing, dyeing  by  application  of  the  coloring  element.  Yet 
they  tell  us  dyeing,  coloring,  etc.  are  eiFected  always  by 
dipping.  There  is  now  one  more  Greek  word  that  means 
to  dye,  stain,  color,  tinge  as  well  as  to  sprinkle,  wet,  etc. 
Liddell  &  Scott,  the  favorite  immersionist  lexicon,  gives 
bapto  these  meanings  among  others:  "To  color,"  "to  dye 
the  hair,"  "to  steep  in  crimson."  Groves  gives,  "Dye," 
"stain,"  ^^ color,"  as  well  as  "dip,"  "sprinkle,  "wet," 
"moisten."  Is  it  not  governed  by  the  same  laws  of  lan- 
guage? All  the  other  ten  words  that  have  the  meanings 
it  has  have  either  sprinkle  or  bedew,  the  same,  "touel 
slightly,"  "to  touch  the  surface  of  the  body,"  "to  she 
tears"  as  the  primary  meanings.  (1)  In  all  the  primar 
meaning  was  either  sprinkle,  shed,  as  tears,  dew,  or  toucl 
One  was  by  sprinkling  flowers.  This  forever  settles  the 
question  about  dyeing,  coloring,  coming  from  dip.  (2)  As 
words  meaning  dip  (dupto),  immerse,*  never  mean  to  dye, 
color,  it  shows  bapto  never  primarily  meant  to  dip. 

It  has  now  been  demonstrated — 

1.  That  bapto  primarily  applied  to  sprinkling,  to  eifii- 
sion,  where  liquids  were  the  elements,  either  blood,  or  water, 
or  juice,  sap,  staining,  or  moistening  elements. 

2.  That  it  applied  where  the  slightest  possible  aspersion 
occurred,  even  a  few  drops — Homer,  Hippocrates,  Aris- 
totle, Aristophanes. 

3.  That  dye,  stain,  color  do  not  come  from,  are  never 
meanings  of  words  that  properly  and  generally  mean  to 

*  BiiOti^o)^  Karadvo)^  etc.     See  them  all  elsewhere  immerse. 


136  BAPTISM. 

dip,  as  cluptOf  kolumbao  in  Greek;  tauchen,  tunken  in  Ger- 
man; dip  in  English;  or  from  immerse — pontidzo,  en,  and 
kataduOy  buthidzo,  katapontidzo  in  Greek ;  mergo,  in,,  de,  and 
Huhmergo  in  Latin.  So  of  Hebrew,  Arabic,  Persic,  Chal- 
dee,  Syriac.  In  no  case  does  color,  stain,  dye  come  from 
dip  or  immerse. 

4.  But  in  scores  of  cases  stain,  color,  paint,  dye  come 
from  words  primarily  meaning  to  sprinkle,  and  from  words 
primarily  meaning  to  moisten,  where  it  is  by  sprinkling, 
dropping  upon,  etc.  Even  molunein,  stain,  primarily 
meant  to  sprinkle.  The  full  list  of  such  words  will  be 
given  under  baptidzo. 

5.  Immersionists  are  unanimous  in  the  assertion  that 
immerse  and  dip  can  never  come  to  mean  to  sprinkle  or 
to  pour.  We  agree  to  this.  It  is  unquestionably  true. 
But  Ave  see  bapto  used  where  dropping,  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, touching  with  the  element  occur,  as  well  as  falling  of 
dew  on  the  body.  So  overwhelming  is  the  evidence  that 
Dr.  Carson  is  compelled  to  admit,  and  the  rest  concur,  that 
'^  Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language.  Bapto  signifies  to  dye 
BY  SPRINKLING  as  })roperly  as  by  dipping,  though  orig- 
inally it  was  confined  to  the  latter"  (Baptism,  63).  The 
latter  remark  has  been  shown  to  be  utterly  incorrect  from 
chronological  facts  as  well  as  from  philology.  As  immer- 
sionists so  pointedly  assert  that  dip  can  never  come  to  mean 
to  sprinkle — a  word  properly  meaning  dip — and  yet  are 
compelled  to  admit  bapto  does  so  apply,  it  shows  that 
sprinkle,  and  not  dip,  was  the  primary  meaning  of  this 
word.     But, 

6.  When  it  is  known,  as  will  be  exhibited  under  bap- 
tidzo, that  great  numbers  of  words  primarily  mean  to 
sprinkle,  others  to  moisten,  Avet,  where  the  mode  was 
sprinkling,  dropping,  yet  come  to  mean  derivatively  all 


BAPTO — PRIMARY    MEANING    CONTINUED.  137 

that  hapto  and  all  that  baptidzo  are  admitted  by  all  par- 
ties to  mean,  then  it  'becomes  as  perfectly  demonstrated 
that  bapto  primarily  meant  to  sprinkle,  as  that  things 
equal  to  each  other  are  equal  to  the  same. 

7.  That  dip  is  later,  rarer,  a  derived  meaning  of  bapto. 

8.  That  immerse  is  unknown  as  a  meaning  when  "  in- 
spection^' tests  the  matter,  themselves  being  judges. 

9.  That  in  the  Bible  it  clearly  retains  sprinkle  as  one 
of  its  meanings  still,  while  it  never  implies  immersion. 

10.  That  the  fathers  of  the  earliest  ages — Irenseus,  born 
only  a  few  years  before  John's  death,  Origen,  and  Hippol- 
ytus,  all  learned  Greeks,  translate  bapto  sprinkle. 

11.  That  the  versions  from  apostolic  times  till  the  six- 
teenth century  render  bapto  sprinkle  as  well  as  by  other 
terms. 

12.  Over  and  again  A.  Campbell  asserts  that  bapto  and 
baptidzo  are  the  same  in  meaning.  So  does  Drs.  Carson, 
pp.  19,  18,  and  23,  and  Gale,  quoted  also  by  Carson.  See 
Carson  also,  p.  315.  While  we  do  not  sanction  this,  we 
produce  it  to  show  how  they  regard  it. 


138  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Lexicons  on  Baptidzo. 

We  will  now  cite  the  most  critical,  the  most  popular 
and  authoritative  and  universally-recognized  standards 
of  Greek  lexicography  known.  In  the  list  we  give  the 
entire  body  of  native  lexicographers  who  define  this  word.* 
Writers  on  this  subject  have  skipped  from  bapto  to  bap- 
tidzo in  lexical  citations,  and  bounded  to  and  fro  in  classic 
citations,  and  Mr.  A.  Campbell,  not  to  be  outdone,  doubles 
down  the  lexicon  into  defining  ^^  bapto  et  baptidzo^'  as  one 
word,  on  several  occasions,  when  no  lexicon  on  earth  ever 
made  such  a  stupendous  blunder.  Booth,  and  my  good 
friend  Dr.  G.  W.  Brents,  of  Tennessee,  string  out  long 
lines  of  theologians  small  and  great,  historians  read  and 
unread,  authorities  learned  and  ignorant,  and  lexicons 
good,  bad,  and  doubly  indifferent,  together  with  private 
letters  partisanly  written,  glossaries  on  single  books  or 
authors — all  confusedly  mixed  and  jumbled  together  into 
a  strange,  crude,  and  indigestible  mass,  heterogeneously 
mixed  up,  till  confusion  is  confounded,  and,  in  nine  tenths 
of  the  cases  words  and  sentences  enough  left  out  to  defeat 
all  hope  of  accuracy  and  analysis.  In  many  cases,  also, 
the  real  lexicons  cited  are  some  Arabic,  some  Hebrew, 

*  Following  others,  we  once  quoted  Suidas  on  baptidzo,  but  he  does 
not  define  it  at  all.  Hesychius  and  Suidas  give  to  bapio  only  its  rare 
meaning,  wash,  pluno,  and  are  not  cited  for  that  reason  under  bapto. 
Dr.  Graves  still  keeps  up  the  old  blunder  of  quoting  Suidas  on  baptidzo, 
all  apocryphal. 


LEXICONS  ON  BAPTIDZO.  139 

some  Syriac — all  quoted  as  if  Greek,  and  on   baptidzo! 
We  have  carefully  avoided  all  these  absurdities. 

Yet,  on  account  of  their  early  period  and  great  advan- 
tages, and  because  they  define  and  translate  the  word,  act- 
ing from  the  standpoint  of  lexicography,  we  do  cite  four 
authorities  who  never  compiled  lexicons.  But  they  trans- 
late the  word  used  by  Messiah  in  the  commission  to  bap- 
tize, and  for  that  reason  we  quote  them  at  once.  They  are 
the  only  authors  of  all  antiquity  we  have  found  that  de- 
fine the  word.  Hence  they  are  too  valuable  to  be  omitted 
in  this  place. 

1.  Julianus,  fourth  century  after  Christ :  ^^Baptidzo 
means  to  sprinkle. ^^  * 

Julianus  t  was  one  of  the  most  acute  and  profoundly 

*  BaTrri^o)  perfunde7'e  inter pretat us  est.  Beza's  Annotatioiies  Greece 
Nou.  Test,  Matt,  iii,  11,  ed.  1598,  folio.  Dr.  Graves,  since  the  above, 
Debate,  p.  258,  tanslates  j)ef fund  ere  "  besprinkle." 

It  is  a  painful  fact  that  after  all  the  exposures  we  have  made,  had 
made  in  the  Louisville  Debate,  and  in  various  papers,  of  misquotations, 
suppressions  of  essential  points  in  lexical  citations  as  well  as  of  authors, 
and  the  severe  chastisement  we  gave  some  authors  at  Carrollton,  Mo., 
1875,  that  still  partisans  and  mere  controversialists  will  not  agree  to  be 
governed  by  a  spirit  of  fairness.  Dr.  Graves,  e.  g.  professing  to  quote 
forty  (40)  Greek  lexicons  (Graves-Ditzler  Debate,  pp.  322,  529),  in  the 
list  puts  down  a  number  of  mere  glossaries,  mere  lexica ;  a  private  letter 
reported  as  a  lexicon  (!);  one  as  Trommius's  lexicon,  when  it  is  also  a 
glossary,  and  not  made  nor  published  by  Trommius;  and  a  long  list  of 
authors  reported  as  lexicons  whom  he  never  saw,  whose  works  he  never 
consulted,  and  whose  relative  merits  are  never  distinguished — all  thrown 
together  in  a  heterogeneous  and  undigested  mass,  without  analysis,  order, 
or  accuracy.  And  to  make  bad  worse,  only  one  lexicon  out  of  the  so- 
called  forty  is  correctly  reported ! !  In  every  lexicon  cited,  save  one, 
most  essential  definitions  are  suppressed,  and  essential  words  left  out  in 
all  cases  save  the  single  exception ! 

Then  after  the  rebuke  we  gave  Dr.  Judd  and  him  at  Carrollton, 
which  he  never  resented  there  (pp.  146-7),  Dr.  Graves  in  his  last  speech 
— not  as  delivered,  but  as  rewritten  by  him  after  I  had  returned  to  Ken- 
tucky (p.  530) — repeats  the   shameful  untruth,  and  says,  "Ainad  in 


140  .  BAPTISM. 

versed  opponents  Augustine  had,  and  was  in  that  early- 
day  thoroughly  acquainted  with  these  questions.  '^ 

2.  Augustine,  fourth  century,  next  to  Jerome  the  most 
illustrious  of  Latin  fathers,  admits  Julianus^s  definitions, 
and  seeks  to  limit  or  distinguish  already  between  Bible 
and  classic  use. 

3.  Tertullian,  A.  d.  190  to  220,  renders  baptidzo  by 
sprinkle,  f 

Syriac,  as  all  standard  lexicographers  testify,  primarily  sig- 
nifies TO  immerse"!!  a  more  willful  falsehood  was  never  uttered 
by  any  perjured,  oath-bound  member  of  a  robber  clan  on  earth.  These, 
with  hosts  of  other  statements  in  these  last  speeches  on  Mode,  and  all 
subsequent  parts  of  the  so-called  debate,  account  for  their  not  sending 
to  me  a  single  proof-sheet  after  my  sixteenth  speech  on  the  First  Prop- 
osition, though  I  requested  it,  and  gave  them  my  address,  (For  Castell's 
definition  and  "  primary  "  force  of  the  word,  see  the  Debate,  p.  147, 
with  the  original  given.)  In  the  same  strain  he  defies  decency  on  page 
531,  from  XIV  on  to  XX.  Here  he  pretends  that  all  these  Methodist^ 
Presbyterian,  and  eminent  pedobaptist  scholars,  "  full  one  hundred," 
•embracing  Terretinus,  Witsius,  Beza,  Wesley,  A.  Clarke,  Vossius,  Light- 
foot,  Stier,  Walaus,  M.  Stuart,  as  the  most  noted,  held  that  "  immersion 
was  the  only  act  of  Apostolic  or  primitive  baptism  "  ! !  Dr.  Graves  as 
well  knew  that  every  word  of  the  above  was  without  any  foundation  or 
truth  as  he  knew  he  held  his  pen  in  hand,  and  that  every  one  of  the 
above  writers  maintained  just  the  reverse.  (See  them  all  quoted  in  this 
work,  as  well  as  in  that  debate.) 

^Adversus  qiietn  eruditissimos  libros  scripsit  Augustinus ;  Beza,  ibid. 

t  Perfudit.  Thus  :  llli  quos  Menander  perfndit,  "  those  whom  Men- 
ander  baptized  *' — sprinkled.  De  Anima,  c.  51.  Irenaeus,  a.d.  160,  uses 
"baptized"  of  them  instead  of  '■'■  perfudit^ 

We  have  known  partisans  who  tried  to  evade  the  force  of  perfudit, 
as  if  it  implied  a  very  copious  pouring  all  over  the  person,  which, 
though  it  changes  not  our  argument,  is  not  true,  as  the  following  use  of 
it  shows : 

1.  Stokius  :  'Vaivti,  raino  [sprinkle],  ^e7/wwc?o,  adspergo. 

2.  Ed.  Leigh,  Sacra  Critica :  'Taivcj,  perfundo,  aspergo. 

3.  Schleusner,  O.  T.  Lexicon :  Tavr/^w,  etc.,  a  paho),  perfundo,  .  .  . 
sic  usurpaiur  de  sanguine  (Heb.  ix,  13,  19,  etc.);  sprinkle,  "from  raino, 
to  sprinkle.     Thus  it  is  used  of  the  blood,  etc.  (Heb.  ix,  13,  19,  etc.). 


LEXICONS   ON    BAPTIDZO.  141 

4.  Euththymius,  fourth  century,  besprinkle  *  [sprinkle]. 

5.  Codex  Sinaiticus,  besprinkle  f  [sprinkle]. 

6.  Codex  Vaticanus,  besprinkle  J  [sprinkle]. 

7.  Kouma,  a  native  Greek  of  this  century,  the  lexicon 
written  at  great  length  in  modern  Greek :  "  Baptidzo, 
from  hapto,  to  sink,  to  put  frequently  into  water;  to  be- 
sprinkle, §  shed  forth  (or  sprinkle).  2.  To  draw  or  pump 
water.     3.  In  an  ecclesiastical  sense,  to  baptize. ''  1[ 

4.  Stephanus,  Thesaurus  Grcecoe  Lin. :  'Vaivu,  perfundo,  aspergo 
(p.  8175). 

5,  Schrevellius :  'Vaivu,  perjundo^  aspergo.  Thus  all  the  lexicons 
define  the  Greek  sprmkle  by  perfundo,  and  as  equivalent  to  aspergo. 

Scores  of  texts  in  Latin  could  be  cited  to  the  same  effect ;  the  fol- 
lowing samples  suffice:  Ovid,  in  the  apostolic  age,  "She  took  water, 
and — perfudit — sprinkled  it  on  his  face  (Met.  iii,  190);  "And — perfudii 
—sprinkled  the  wide  ditches  with  blood"  (Met.  vii,  245);  Castell  uses 
perfudit  caput,  perfiidit  aqua — sprinkle  the  head,  sprinkle  with  water, 
often;  as  well  as  Schiiidler,  Buxtorf,  etc. 

*  'PavTiacjvrai,  in  Mark  vii,  4.  Alford's  and  A.  Clarke's  Notes  on, 
and  the  Tischendorff  Sinaitic  manuscript. 

t  'VavTKJojvTai,  in  Mark  vii,  4. 

X  'PavTiauvrai,  in  Mark  vii,  4.     Eight  others  rendered  it  sprinkle. 

§  In  the  light  of  this  chapter,  how  does  the  language  of  A.  Campbell 
and  others  appear,  when  they  so  boldy  asserted  that  "  It  never  has  been 
translated  by  either  sprinkle  or  pour  by  any  lexicographer  for  eighteen 
hundred  years." 

Dr  J.  R.  Graves,  followed  by  swarms  of  others,  says,  in  The  Baptist, 
Nov.  6,  1875,  "Not  one  of  them  [thirty-two  Greek  lexicographers 
claimed]  defines  it  [baptidzo']  to  pour  or  to  sprinkle."  He  modified  it 
thus  in  his  unspokeii,  written  speech,  where  he  knew  I  would  not  see  it 
till  in  the  published  book,  too  late  to  be  exposed  in  the  work  (p.  526). 
In  capitals  he  says,  "No  standard  lexicon  in  the  world  gives  'to 
sprinkle,'  or  'to  pour '  as  a  literal  and  real  signification  of  baptidzo.''  If 
Baptists  are  edified  by  such  reckless  dealing  we  ought  to  be  satisfied. 
He  then  pretends  to  call  on  me  "to  produce  one  Greek  lexicon  of  ac- 
knowledged authority,  or  an  authoritative  quotation  from  one,  that  gives 
'to  sprinkle'  or  'to  pour'  as  a  primaky  meaning  of  baptidzo.''  He 
HAS  NOT  DONE  IT."  Capitals  his  own  in  this  line.  He  well  knew  he 
never  said  that  in  the  debate.     Such  hypocrisy  is  contemptible. 

^  Kouma :  'EairTiC.u  M.  lgu  ek  tov  jSoltttu  ;  f3vd!^cj^  fSovrcj  av^vaKig  e'lg 
ipyov,  Karafipexi'},  ^p^x^-     2.  'Avr/lu.     3.  BaTrr/'Cw  .   .  .   eKic/jjc.      S. 


142  BAPTISM. 

8.  Sophocles,  restricted  to  the  Iron  Age  or  later  Greek, 
is  an  immersion ist,  and  a  favorite  with  them.  "BaptidzOj 
to  dip,  to  immerse ;  sink,  to  be  drowned  [as  the  effect  of 
sinking]  ;  to  sink.  Trop.,  to  afflict;  soaked  in  liquor;  to 
be  drunk,  intoxicated.  2.  Mid.,  to  perform  ablution ; 
to  bathe ;  bathed  [baptized]  in  tears ;  to  plunge  a  knife. 
4.  [Ecclesiastical  in  Dark  Ages]  :  Baptizo,  mergo,  mergito, 
tlngo  (or  tinguo),  to  baptize ;  New  Testament,  passim. ''  * 
Baptism  with  tears  is  hardly  a  clear  case  of  dipping  or  im- 
mersing. 

9.  Schsetgennius.  ^^Baptidzo:  First,  properly  (i.  e.  in 
classics)  to  plunge,  sink  in  (immerse) ;  second,  to  wash, 
to  cleanse  (Mark  vii,  4  ;  Luke  xi,  38) ;  third,  to  baptize,  in 
a  sacred  sense.  Metaphorically  it  means,  first,  to  pour 
forth  abundantly  (Matt,  iii,  11;  Acts  i,  5,  etc.);  second, 
to  be  subjected  to  great  dangers  and  burdens ''  f  (c'lassic  ref- 
erence to  Diodorus  Siculus,  etc.,  as  well  as  one  to  Matthew 
XX,  22,  of  Christ's  sufferings). 

10.  Wahl.  He  has  two  editions.  In  the  first  the  New 
Testament  meanings  are  given  thus :  "  First,  to  wash  (clas- 
sic, to  sink  down,  submerse);  second,  to  immerse;  third, 
metaphorically,  overwhelm  any  thing  with  any  thing; 
to  imbue  plentifully,  as  with  the  divine  Spirit,''  etc. 

In  his  second  later  edition  it  reads,  Wahl,  baptidzo 
(1831)— 

*  Where  it  is  "baptized"  in  tears,  he  cites  the  Greek  thus,  BaTTri^eadat 
Toiq  daKpvGL^  which  is,  "  baptized  with  tears."  The  word  occurs  in  Euse- 
bius's  Greek  History,  where  John  the  Apostle  "baptized"  a  penitent 
who  had  backslidden  "as  if  a  second  time  with  his  tears,"  as  well  as  in 
other  writers. 

tBaTTTt'Cw — 1.  Proprie  mergo,  immergo ;  2.  Ahluo,  lavo  (Marc,  vii,  4; 
Luke  xi,  35) ;  3.  Baptizo,  signifl.catu  sacro,  tnetaphorice  accipitur  et  sig- 
nificat.  1.  Largitur  prof  undo  (Matt,  iii,  11;  Acts  i,  5) ;  2.  Muliis  peric- 
litis  et  oneribus  subjiceo  (Matt,  xx,  22);  eadem  sensu  apiuL  profanes 
orcurrere.  etc. 


LEXICONS  ON  BAPTIDZO.  143 

I.  "To  immerse  (Joseplius,  Ant.,  ix,  10,  2 ;  Polyb.  i,  51, 
6,  classic  use),  (a)  properly,  also,  of  the  sacred  immersion, 
then  by  immersion ;  (6)  with  the  idea  of  overwhelming 
included;  to  sprinkle,*  followed  with  the  dative  of  the 
instrument,  etc.,  with  water.  Metaphorically,  for  to  im- 
bue largely ;  (c)  to  plunge  in  or  overwhelm  with  calamities. 
2.  "For  nipto,  wash,  i.  e.  Mark  vii,  3.'^  Later  he  erases 
sprinkle. 

II.  Grimshaw.     Baptidzo  :   To  wash,  dip,  besprinkle. f 

12.  Ewing,  1827,  Glasgow.  ^'Baptidzo:  I  plunge  or 
sink  completely  under  water,  I  cover  partially  with  water, 
I  wet;  third,  I  overwhelm  or  cover  with  water  by  rush- 
ing, flowing,  or  pouring  upon  .  .  .;  fourth,  I  drench  or 
impregnate  with  liquor  by  affusion;  I  pour  abundantly 
upon,  so  as  to  wet  thoroughly;  I  infuse  .  .  .;  I  wash.'';!; 

13.  Ed.  Robinson's  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament 
(classic  use  he  gives  first,  as),  to  dip  in,  to  sink,  to  im- 
merse; in  Greek  writers,  spoken  of  ships,  galleys,  etc. 
Polyb.  i,  51;  Diod.  Sic,  Strabo,  Plut.  ...  In  the  New 
Testament,  first,  to  wash,  to  lave,  to  cleanse  by  washing; 
second,  to  wash  oneself,  i.  e.  one's  hands  or  person,  to 
perform  ablution  ;  §  third,  to  baptize,  etc.  He  then  adds 
in  a  note  to  the  word: 

'^'Per/undo,  sq.  dat ,  etc.  .  .  .  pro  vittto),  lavo.  In  first  edition,  in 
brackets,  he  has  demerge,  submergo  (Polyb.  i,  51-6;  Diod.  Sic,  etc.). 

t  This  is  the  only  lexicon  we  have  accepted  from  other  than  the 
original  on  the  lexicons  on  baptidzo. 

X  This  wild  definition,  so  labored  and  strange,  is  the  only  one  given 
that  really  gives  a  meaning  that  exactly  suits  immersionists — "sink 
completely  tinder  water."  "Water  no  more  inheres  in  baptidzo  than  oil, 
honey,  mud,  or  filth,  as  Conant,  Carson,  A.  Campbell,  etc.,  show. 

§Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  281)  cites  him  thus:  "To  immerse,  to 
sink ;  2.  To  wash,  to  cleanse  by  washing,"  etc.,  and  leaves  out  the  note. 
He  carefully  leaves  out  also  the  words  ''In  New  Test."  preceding  the 
words  "  to  wash,  to  lave,  cleanse,"  etc.,  after  asserting  that  no  standard 
lexicon  makes  a  difference  between  classic  and  Xew  Testament  usel 


144  BAPTISM. 

["Note. — "While  in  Greek  writers,  as  above  exhibited,  from  Plato 
onward,  (^aTrrll^cj  is  every  where  to  sink,  to  immerse,  to  overwhelm,  either 
wholly  or  partially,  yet  in  Hellenistic  usage  ...  it  would  seem  to  have 
expressed,  not  always  simply  immersion,  but  the  more  general  idea  of 
ablution  or  aifusion."     Ed.  1854.] 

14.  Stokius.  We  next  take  up  this  author,  old  school 
of  philology,  and  for  years  paraded  by  immersionists  as 
having  no  superior!* 

^^ Baptidzo:  To  wash,  to  baptize;  passive,  to  be  washed, 
to  be  cleansed."  t  He  then  gives  the  current  classic  use 
and  the  old-time  philology  in  his  usual  note  to  a  word  of 
any  extended  use  in  the  New  Testament,  thus:  "Gener- 
ally, and  by  the  force  of  the  word,  it  obtains  the  sense  of 
dipping  or  immersing.]:  Specially  (a)  properly  it  is  to 
immerse  or  dip  in  water;  (a)  tropically  (1)  by  a  metalepsis, 
it  is  to  wash  (Javare)  or  cleanse  {abluere),  because  any  thing 
is  accustomed  to  be  dipped  or  immersed  in  water  that  it 
may  be  washed  or  cleansed,  althouc/h  also  the  tcashing  or 
cleansing  can  be,  and  generally  is,  accomplished  by 
SPRINKLING    THE  AVATER    (Mark  vii,  4;    Luke  xi,  38). 

*■  That  you  may  see  how  much  importance  is  attached  to  the  opinion 
of  Stokius,  I  will  read  you  from  A.  Campbell's  works :  "  Has  he  pro- 
duced a  lexicon,  of  the  eighteen  centuries  past,  giving  sprinkle  ov  pour 
as  the  j)roper  or  as  the  figurative  meaning  of  baptidzo  ?  .  .  Let  him 
produce  any  modern  dictionary,  English,  French,  Spanish,  German,  etc., 
thus  expounding  the  Greek  words  hopto  or  baptidzo^'  (Debate,  p.  181). 

Of  Stokius:  "This  great  master  of  sacred  literature"  (Debate, 
p.  CO);  "One  of  the  most  learned  rabbis  in  the  school  and  learning  of 
orthodoxy"  (Debate,  p.  206);  •'  The  two  still  more  venerable  names  of 
Schleusner  and  Stokius  "  (Debate,  p.  208).  '•  Schleusner,  a  man  revered 
by  orthodox  theologians,  and  of  enviable  fame"  (Debate,  p  58). 

A.  C.  (Debate,  p.  208)  declares  Stokius  and  Schleusner  "  are  still 
more  decidedly  with  us  [them]  .  .  .  than  any  one  or  all  of  the  classic 
dictionaries." 

t  BaTTTi^w,  lavo,  baptizo,  passivum  j3a7rTi(^o/xat,  luor,  lavor.  Lavo  is  to 
wash,  wet,  bedew,  besprinkle,  by  all  lexicons. 

X  It  might  equally  well  be  dipping  and  immerse,  but  I  prefer  to  fol- 
low immersion  translations,  unless  they  grossly  depart  from  the  original. 


LEXirOXB   ox    EAPTIDZO.  145 

Hence  it  is  transferred  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  .  .  . 
3.  Metaphorically  it  designates  (a)  the  miraculous  pour- 
ing out  (effusionem)  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  apostles 
and  other  believers,  as  well  on  account  of  the  abundance 
of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  anciently  the  water 
was  copiously  poured  upon  those  baptized,  or  they  were 
immersed  deep  in  the  water,'^  etc.* 

Here  Stokius  adopts  the  old  theory  held  by  Suicer, 
Vossius,  Beza,  Terretinus,  etc.,  that  baptidzo  came  to  mean 
to  wash  derivatively,  then  to  wash  by  sprinkling.  And 
he  cites  two  New  Testament  texts  where  it  refers  to  Jew- 
ish baptisms  thus  effected,  for  in  both  it  is  baptidzo  (Mark 
vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38).  Then  as  Jewish  baptism  {lotio,  abla- 
tio-baptidzo^  and  baptismos)  was  effected  generally  '^by 
sprinkling  the  water,'^  ''hence  it  is  transferred  to  desig- 
nate the  sacrament  of  baptism.''  Then  he  tells  us  meta- 
phorically it  designated  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit. 
Why  so?  He  tells  us,  ^^ Since  anciently  the  water  was 
copiously  poured   upon  those   baptized,"  etc.  f      Because 

^BaTTTi^o),  lavo,  baptizo,  ^oassivuyn,  luor,  lavor.     Then  he  adds  a  note: 

1.  Generatiyn  ac  vi  vocis   inthictionis   ac  innnersionis  notiojiem  ohtincf. 

2.  Speciatim,  (a)  proprie  est  immergei^e  ac  intingere  in  aquam;  (b)  tropice, 
(1)  per  metalipsin  est,  lavare,  abluere,  quia  aliqtdd  iniingi  ac  immergi 
solet  in  aquam  ut  lavetur,  vel  abluatur  quamquain  et  adspergendo 
aquam,  lotio  vel  ablutio  fieri  queat  et  soleat  (Mark  vii,  4:  Luke  xi,  38). 
Hlnc  transferetur  ad  baptlsmi  sacr amentum,  etc.  .  .  .  Per  Met.  designat 
(a)  miracidosam  spiritus  S.  [sancti']  effusionem  super  apostolos,  aliosque 
credentes,  turn  ob  donoriim  spiritus  S.,  copiam,  prout  oltm  aqua  bapii- 
zandis  copiose  AFFUNDEBatur,  vel  illi  penitus  in  aquam  immergebau- 
tur,  etc. 

tDr.  Graves  (Debate  p.  354)  says,  "Stokius  says  tliat  properly  it 
means  only  '  to  immerse,'  '  to  dip  into,'  "  etc.  Where  is  the  "  07ily  "  / 
He  cites  the  Latin  from  my  lexicon,  which  he  borrowed,  as  he  borrowed 
Leigh,  Castell,  etc.,  at  Carrollton;  but  there  is  no  "only,"  nay  he  luis 
him  translated,  but  no  "ow^y."  He  admits  he  says  it  "was  by  sprin- 
kling," as  above,  but  that  was  merely  Stokius's  "  opinion."  All  he  said 
was  simply  "  opinion;  "  all  as  to  "immerse''  or  "dip  in  water,"  to  wash, 

10 


\\C)  BAPTTftM. 

the  water  was  thus  poured  on  those  baptized  in  the  apos- 
tolic age  they  metaphorically  applied  the  word  to  the 
Spirit's  influence,  etc.     How  plain  and  simple.^^ 

15.  H.  Cremer,  second  edition,  1878.  Tiiis  is  a  "  Bib- 
lio-Theological  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  Greek/' 
from  the  second  German  edition,  by  W.  Urwick.  ^'  Bap- 
t'idzo  :  To  immerse,  to  submerge ;  often  in  later  Greek,  Plut., 
etc/^  After  ^^  immerse  and  submerse,^'  as  "  later  ^'  classic 
meanings,  he  urges  that  rachats  [wash],  louo  [wash],  and 
niptesthai  [wash  the  hands]  (Matt,  xv,  2),  for  which  Mark 
vii,  4,  has  baptidzesthai  are  all  one.  Then  he  says,  "  Ex- 
pressions like  Isaiah  i,  16  ['Svash  you ''],  and  prophesies  like 
Ezekiel  xxxi,  25  ['Hhen  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you''],  xxxvii,  23  [^^ cleanse  them"]  tf.,  Zechariah  xiii,  1, 
are  connected  with  the  Levitical  washings,  etc.  .  .  This  is 
the  reason  also  why  baptidzein  in  itself  was  not  a  thing 
unknown  to  the  Jews."  On  Luke  iii,  IG,  John  i,  33,  and 
Matthew  iii,  11,  he  urges  that  "  it  makes  no  material  differ- 
ence whether  en  [in,  with]  be  taken  locally  [i.  e.  in  water] 
or  instrumentally  [en  hudatiy  with  water].  It  is  the  for- 
mer, if  in  baptidzein,  with  the  meaning  to  dip,  we  main- 

and  a  very  erroneous  opinion  at  that,  against  all  facts  and  the  science 
of  language.     But  that  is  Stoku^s. 

■•■•■To  ward  off  Stokius's  testimony,  the  immersionists  quote  him  on 
hapiihina,  where  S.  abrid(^es  his  language,  and  refers  to  baptism,  "in 
which  those  to  be  baptized  were  formerly  immersed  into  water;  though 
at  this  time  the  water  is  only  sprinkled  upon  them,"  etc.  I  copy  Dr. 
Graves's  own  version  of  it  (Debate,  p.  35S).  iS'ow  of  this — 1.  Stokiua 
is  not  defining  haptidzo,  but  hapiisma,  a  word  not  used  once  in  all  the 
gospels  for  Christian  baptism.  2.  No  Scripture  text,  7iot  one,  is  cited  by 
Stokius.  He  cites  a  host  where  the  sprinkle  water — and  pour  apply — 
after  his  hinc  —  hence,  because  the  water  was  sprinkled,  etc.  —  hence 
transferred  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  3.  He  is  talking  of  its  use  by 
the  fathers  after  the  apostolic  age.  Hence  his  word,  "  They  call  it  [the 
sacrament]  of  initiation  " — "  first  sacrament."  Where  is  it  so  called  in 
the  New  Testament. 


LEXICOXS  OX  BAPTTDZO.  147 

tain  the  idea  of  immersion ;  it  is  the  latter  [with]  if  we 
maintain  the  idea  of  a  washing  or  a  pouring  over/'  He 
had  said  already,  ^'  That  the  meaning  '  to  wash  in  order 
to  purification  from  sin/  is  metaphorical,  and  not  that 
of  "immerse/  is  clear  from  the  contraposition  of  en 
hudati  and  en  pneumatl  [baptize  with  water — with  the 
Spirit],  by  which  the  two  baptisms  are  distinguished  from 
each  other.  Both  in  the  case  of  John  and  of  the  Messiah 
the  question  was  one  of  purification  from  sin,  which  the 
former  effected  by  means  of  water,  the  latter  by  means  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.  Cf.  [compare]  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25- 
27  ;  Malachi  iii,  2,  3 ;  Isaiah  vi,  6,  7.''  Then  follows  the 
above  extract  beginning  "  It  makes  no  material  differ- 
ence,'' etc.  Cremer,  like  Havernick,  Ebrard,  and  hosts  of 
others,  holds  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25,  "sprinkles,"  to  be  bap- 
tism.    That  baptism  is  not  immersion. 

As  my  exposures  of  immersion  quotations  of  these 
authors  stung  them  into  madness,  they  have  resorted  to 
the  most  astounding  dodges  and  bold  and  most  reckless 
accusations  in  order  to  draw  off  attention  from  their  bad 
use  of  these  authors.  Hence  we  give  the  full  text  both  in 
the  original  and  the  translation,  with  the  exposure  of  their 
reckless  criticisms  and  assertions  appended,  that  all  may 
see  the  simple  desperation  of  their  leaders  in  the  West. 

16.  Schleusner.     Baptidzo :    Properly,^  I   immerse   or 

*  Ba7rr/^w,  1.  Proprie,  immergo,  ac  iniingo  in  aquam  mergo,  a  /^oTrrw, 
et  resjiondet,  Hebrew  "5*^  [tahhal] — 2  Keg.  v,  14;  in  vers.  Alex,  et  ^'s-^ 
[tabha\  apucl  symmachum  (Ps.  Ixviii,  5) ;  et  apucl  incertum  (Ps.  ix,  6).  hi 
hac  significaiione  nunquam  in  N.  T.  sed  eo  Jrequeniius  in  Script.  Greek 
legitur^  v.  c.  (Died.  Sic.  i,  chap.  36),  de  Nilo  exwndenie  [text  of  land 
animals  submersed,  etc.] — Strabo,  Polyb.,  etc.  .  .  .  Jom,  quia  hand  raro 
aliquid  immergi  ac  intingi  in  aquam  solet,  tit  lavetur  hinc.  2.  Ahluo, 
lavo,  aqua  purgo  notat.  Sic  legitur  in  N.  T.  (Marc,  vii,  4),  Kal  airb 
ayopaq  eav  //?)  (iaTrTiouvraL  (in  quibusdam  codd.,  pavriatJVTai),  qIk  kudiovGi 
[Latin  rendering  —  et  res  sj-.]— Luc.  xi,  38  [texts  in  his  Latin — aqua 


148  BAPTISM. 

clip,  I  plunge  into  [or  in]  water,  from  hapto,  and  answers  to 
the  Hebrew  tabhal  [i.  e.  translates  tabhat],  2  Kings  v,  14, 
in  the  Alexandrian  version  [LXX],  and  to  tabha,  in  Sym- 
machus,  Psalm  Ixviii,  3  [really],  and  in  an  unknown  [un- 
certain as  to  its  translator]  Psalm  ix,  6.  But  in  this 
sense  it  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  but  very  fre- 
quently in  Greek  [classic]  writers;  for  example,  Diodorus 
Siculus,  Strabo,  etc.,  of  the  overflowing  of  the  Nile,  etc., 
Polybius,  etc 

^'  Now,  because  not  unfrequently  [rarely]  a  thing  is  im- 
mersed or  dipped  in  water  that  it  may  be  washed ;  hence, 
second  [it  means],  to  cleanse,  to  wash,  to  purify  with 
water.  Thus  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.*  Mark 
vii,  4  [translated  by  him],  Luke  xi,  38  [copied  likewise 
and  translated  in  Latin].  [He  notes  that  in  some  texts — 
codices — it  reads  sprinkle  {rantlsontai)  instead  of  ^^  bap- 
tize themselves  "].  Baptidzesthal  not  only  means  to  wash, 
but  to  wash  oneself,  etc.  Eccles.  xxxiv,  30;  Judith 
xii,  8.  Hence  transferred  to  the  solemn  rite  of  baptism. 
[Detailed  comments  follow.]  Fourth,  metaphorically,  as 
the  Latin,  to  imbue,  to  give  to  largely  and  copiously,  and 
to  administer,  to  pour  forth  abundantly  (Matt,  iii,  11), 
etc". 

Here    this   great   lexicographer   gives    immerse,   dip, 

ohlutce  et  purgaioe  juerint — se  non  lavasse].  BaTr,  non  solum  lavari,  sed 
etiam  se  lavare  significare  multis  locis  probare  potest  (Sirac.  xxxiv,  30) 
[text.] ;  Judith  xii,  8  [text].  3.  Hinc  transferetur  ad  hap)tismi  ritum 
solemnem,  etc.  [Detailed  comment  and  texts— not  on  mode,  follow.]  4. 
Metaphorice :  lit  Lat.  imbuo,  large  et  copiose  do  aique  suppedito,  largiter 
profmido  (Matt,  iii,  11). 

*  After  all  this  pains  by  Stokius,  and  more  still,  if  possible,  by 
Schleusner,  to  distinguish  between  the  classic  and  Isew  Testament  use 
of  baptidzo,  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  527)  says,  "It  is  not  true  that  any 
standard  lexicon  distinguishes  between  classic  Greek  and  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  in  giving  definitions  of  baptidzo" ! !  Was  ever  mortal  so 
reckless  who  believed  in  a  God? 


LEXICONS    OX    BAPTIDZO.  149 

plunge,  in  which  sense  it  often  occurs  in  classic  Greek,  as 
he  holds,  and  in  the  sense  of  shik  it  does  often  so  occur, 
and  of  overflow,  overwhelm;  but  he  adds,  "In  this  sense 
it  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testament/^  In  what  sense, 
then,  does  it  occur  in  the  New  Testament?  In  the  sense 
of  "  cleanse,  wash,  purify  with  w^ater/^  In  certain  ancient 
codices  it  reads  sprinkle  for  baptize.  In  what  other  sense 
does  it  occur  in  the  New  Testament?  Among  others,  "to 
pour  forth  abundantly/^  * 

••■••  As  might  be  expected,  garbling  the  text,  suppression,  and  the  bold- 
est dealing  have  distinguished  some  of  the  western  immersionists  on  this 
author.  It  has  been  assumed  that  "  in  this  sense  it  does  not  occur  in 
the  New  Testament,"  means  in  the  sense  of  tahha,  as  distinguished  from 
iabhal  [! !],  but  by  no  scholar.  We  translated  it  as  it  is.  Our  views  are 
supported — 

1.  By  the  very  language  itself.  Schleusner  says  expressly  of  these 
meanings — cleanse,  wash,  purify,  ^'Thus  it  occui^s  in  the  New  Testmneniy 
He  cited  the  well-known  passages  Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38,  which  were 
Jewish  baptisms,  and  renders  them  "wash." 

Then  he  cites  the  fact  that  in  certain  ancient  manuscripts  of  the 
Bible  it  read,  instead  of  baptize  themselves,  sprinkle  [  rcmtisdniai  ] 
themselves.  Nine  of  them  thus  read.  The  two  oldest  copies  of  the 
Bible  known  in  the  world  read  "  sprinkle  "  for  "  baptize."  He  cites 
Judith  xii,  7,  where  she  baptized — trrl  rijg  injyf/^  rov  vdarog — at  the  fount- 
ain of  water,  washed;  and  Ecclesiasticus,  "He  that  —  [io/j^irfzo]  bap- 
tizeth — washeth  himself  from  a  dead  body,"  etc.,  and  he  translates  them 
all  ^^  washy  Then  he  tells  us— since  he  showed  it  applied  among  the 
Jews  to  washing,  and  so  many  ancient  copies  had  it  sprinkle,  that  hence 
the  word  is  transferred  [i.  e.  from  this  Jewish  use  for  ages  by  the  Jews] 
to  the  solemn  rite  of  baptism. 

2.  It  is  perfectly  evident  further  from  the  fact  that  he  defines  its 
New  Testament  use  to  be  "i7nbuo/^  largiiur  prqfundo — "to  imbue,  to 
pour  forth  abvnidantly."  These  are  not  meanings  of  iabhal  or  tabha  in 
any  case. 

3.  The  words  "iw  hac  sif/nificatione"  can  not  refer  to  tabha,  "but 
in  this  sense"  of  tabha  as  distinguished  from  tahhal,  for  the  punctu- 
ation unites  them,  and  the  et — et — "to  tabhal  and  to  tabha.''  To  evade 
this,  Dr.  Graves  absolutely  suppresses  the  et — throws  it  out  in  trans- 
lating it  (Debate,  p.  347).  Nor  again,  because  of  the  absurdity  im- 
plied;   for  tabhal  occurs  with  blood  the    first  time  it  appears  in   the 


150  BAPTISM. 

It  may  be  that  we  do  not  know  how  to  sympathize  with 
our  good  immersionist  friends,  but  they  must  bear  these 
exposures. 

world  (Gen.  xxxvii,  31,  and  Ex.  xii,  22 ;  and  in  other  passages  in  Levit- 
icus) ;  with  oil  also.  Dr.  Graves,  and  others  whom  he  follows,  makes 
Schleusner  say  hapticlzo  does  not  occur  in  the  sense  of  tabhal  in  the  two 
verses  given  ;  but  it  does  occur  in  the  sense  of  tabhal  (2  Kings  v,  14) — 
"  dipped  himself."  But  is  that  its  New  Testament  sense  ?  Do  they  dip 
themselves  in  the  New  Testament.  If  it  is  used  only  for  "  dip  himself," 
and  only  in  the  sense  of  iahlial,  whence  comes  S.'s  "  wash,  cleanse,  purify, 
pour  forth  abundantly"?  Tabhal  in  Bible  use  never  means  wash, 
cleanse,  purify.  It  occurs  in  connection  with  blood,  oil,  etc.  oftener 
than  any  thing  else,  as  Dr.  Graves's  own  citations  show  (Debate,  pp. 
487,  489). 

4.  Dr.  Graves,  in  his  blundering  way  (Debate,  p.  348)  says,  "And 
that  it  also  corresponds  to  tava  [tahha']  in  Psalm  Ixviii,  5,  '  Thou  hast 
overichelmed  (i.  e.  destroyed  by  an  overwhelming)  cities,'  and  in  an  un- 
known writer,  a  gloss;  or  (Ps.  ix,  6)  'Their  memorial  is  j^^rished'  (by  an 
overwhelming  that  covers  it  out  of  sight).  But  in  this  sense  it  is  never 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  In  what  sense?  Unquestionably  the  lat- 
ter, as  tava  is  used  i7i  these  two  2^assages.  In  the  sense,  then,  of  to  de- 
stroy by  immersing  it  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament."  Again 
(Debate,  p.  412)  he  says  the  same,  in  brief,  thus :  "  Undoubtedly  [it 
refers]  to  the  hist,  tava,  ivhich  is  used  in  the  two  Psalms  referred  to,  in 
the  sense  of  to  destroy  by  overflowing;  and  Schleusner  declares  that  i7i 
this  sense,  i.  e.  to  drown,  to  perish  by  the  submersion,  it  is  never  used 
in  the  New  Testament."  He  tells  us  of  Baptist  doctors  sustaining 
this ! ! 

Does  it  not  occur  to  their  minds  that  this  absurd  theory  destroys 
their  position  on  several  other  points? — e.  g.  where  Dr.  G.  insists  that  no 
standard  lexicon  distinguishes  between  classic  and  New  Testament  use 
(Debate,  p.  527). 

Also,  that  Dr.  G.  himself  cites  classic  cases  where  baptidzo  destroys  by 
drowning,  and  that  Conant  points  out  many  such  places?  But  let  us 
examine  him  in  detail  to  see  how  reliable  are  Baptist  criticisms  here. 

Dr.  Graves  and  his  backers  make  tabha  {tava)  apply  to  overwhelm- 
ings.  It  never  so  applies  in  any  passage  in  the  Bible,  and  no  lexicon 
that  ever  was  made  translates  it  "overwhelm"  or  "  overflow,"  or  by  any 
like  word.  But  let  us  read  the  two  passages  cited  by  Schleusner  (Ps. 
ix,  6 — in  the  Hebrew,  ix,  IC ;  in  James,  ix,  15).  "  The  heathen  are  sunk 
— tabha — down  in  the  pit  that  they  made."  Now  where  is  the  over- 
whelm of  Dr.  G.?     Where  does  the  "overwhelming,"  "cover"  them 


LEXICONS   ON    BAPTIDZO.  151 

17.  Steplianus,  1572.    BapUdzo:    I  plunge  or  immerse, 

as  we  immerse  things  in  water  for  the  purpose  of  wetting 

[wasliiug?]  or  cleansing  them;  plunged,  i.e.  I  submerse, 

"  out  of  sight  "  ?  It  is  such  an  "  overwhelming  "  us  results  in  causing 
the  subject  to  parish,  says  Dr.  G.  Not  a  word  of  it.  Not  one  perishes 
here  by  tabkcu  It  shows  they  sunk  down  in  the  pit,  were  taken  in  their 
own  net;  not  one  is  overwhelmed,  not  one  pj?rishes.  Take  the  other 
passage  (Ps.  Ixix,  3— misprinted  5  in  S.) ;  in  James  it  is  Psalms  Ixix,  2, 
*1  sink — tahha — in  deep  mire."  Where  is  the  "overwhelm"  or  "de- 
stroy "  there?  Not  a  word  of  it.  Where  he  names  waters  and  overflow 
he  changes  both  the  verb  and  noun,  the  manner  of  getting  into  the  ele- 
ment and  the  element.  Mire  is  not  wafer.  Dr.  G.  most  shamefully 
slips  out,  quotes  not  a  word  of  the  real  and  expressed  elements  into 
which  the  tabha  sinks  them,  leaves  them  out,  and  runs  to  other  figures, 
other  words,  and  slips  them  in  the  place  of  the  suppressed  words ! 

But  after  we  exposed  (Debate,  p.  256)  his  blunders,  and  we  had  left 
Memphis  for  Kentuck^^,  he  then  writes  (Debate  pp.  484-5)  that  tahha  in 
Psalms  ix,  15  (English  version),  the  Hebrew  word  translated  baptidzo, 
is  from  a  word  that  means  "to  settle  down,  as  Proverbs  ii,  18:  'Her 
house  sinks  down — shubat — into  death  \el  m.aveth'].''  In  this  sense  the 
great  Schleusner  wishes  to  say,  and  does  say  in  his  lexicon,  that  baptidzo 
is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament."  Here  is  a  change  and  going 
back  on  his  former  dodge  completely.  Where  is  now  "  overwhelm  "  ? 
Where  are  the  floods?  To  sink  down,  to  settle  down  into  a  thing,  is 
not  for  the  thing  to  come,  as  a  flood  overwhelming  it.  But  we  will  not 
allow  this  shameful  deception.  It  is  "  mire  "  in  one  place,  a  "  pit  "  in 
the  other  into  w^hich  tahha  sinks  them. 

His  repeated  blunders,  adding  more  still  (Debate,  p.  484),  we  need 
not  consume  time  with,  where  he  writes  as  if  it  were  in  the  LXX,  this 
tahha  was  rendered  baptidzo,  instead  of  Symmachus  and  the  unknown 
version . 

5.  Finally,  as  tabha  ahuays  means  immerse  —  nothing  in  all  the 
Bible  but  immerse — and  is  so  defined  by  every  and  all  Hebrew  lexicons 
we  ever  saw,  and  yet  Dr.  Graves  says  baptidzo  is  not  used,  does  not 
occur  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  sense  of  tahha,  in  the  places  where  it 
does  mean  immerse,  it  is  destructive  of  their  own  position.  He  makes 
Schleusner  say  directly,  "In  the  sense  of  immerse  baptidzo  kever  occurs 
in  the  New  Testament."     So  I  believe  with  all  my  heart. 

The  foct  that  S.  refers  to  overflowing  of  the  Nile  as  the  very  ex- 
ample he  cites  to  show  bajitidzd's  classic  use,  demonstrates  that  he  could 
not  mean  to  say  that  tahha  was  used  in  that  sense,  as  it  never  is  so  used. 
In  the  rewritten  debate  (p.  412)  he  says,  backed,  he  urge?,  by  sever; J 


152  BAPTISM. 

I  overwhelm  with  water;  overwhelmed.  \\BaptidzOj  to 
cleanse,  to  wash  (Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38")."^ 

18.  Gazes.  '^Baptidzo:  To  put  frequently  any  thing  into 
any  thing,  and  thence  upon  it;  to  shed  forth  any  thing; 
to  water;  to  pour  upon;  to  wash.  2.  To  draw  or  pump 
water;  to  put  a  vessel  into  a  place  of  water  that  I  may 
pour  out.     3.  To  wash   the   hands   or  to  wash    oneself. 

Baptist  doctors,  that  "  hac  "  refers  to  iavha !  "  Undoubtedly  to  the  last 
iava  which  is  used  in  the  two  Psalms  referred  to  in  the  sense  of  TO  de- 
stroy BY  the  overflowing  "  /  Is  it  not  amazing  that  sectarianism  can  go 
so  far?  In  neither  case  was  the  party  destroyed  that  was  tavhced.  One 
was  tahhced — "  sank  "  in  "  deep  mire."  Was  that  to  "  overflow  "  him  ? 
In  the  other  he  sank  in  a  pit. 

*  BaTTTii^cj  mergo  S.  immergo  id  quce  tijigendi  aid  ahluendi  gratia  aquae 
itnmergimus.  Plut.  (6,  G33)  Sic.  Alex.  Aphr.,  ^ro  immersus.  He  then 
says  Buddseiis  interj^rets  or  renders  it  "  intinctus  also,"  "  etiam  intinctus,'^ 
but  he  does  not  sanction  that.  Strabo  uses  it  for  "  mergo,  s^ihnergo," 
etc.;  of  others  later.     ||  "Ba-W;w,  abluo,  lavo  (Marc,  vii,  4),"  etc. 

Mr.  A.  Campbell,  Drs.  Graves  and  Booth  all  render  the  Latin  of 
Stephanas  and  Scapula  thus :  Mergo,  seu  immergo,  ut  qtice  iigendi,  aut 
ahluendi  gratia  aquae  immergimus.  Mergo,  i.  e.  submergo,  abruo,  aquos. 
"  To  immerse  or  immergo,  as  things  which  we  immerse  for  the  sake  of 
dyeing  or  washing  in  water"  (Graves,  Debate,  p.  281). 

Dr  G.,  p.  282,  has  Scapula  saying  under  haptidzo  "-item  tingo."  It 
is  a  false  reading,  copied  from  an  error  of  Dr.  Rice  in  debate  with  A.  C. 
Dr.  G.  renders  Scapula  "  to  immerse  or  immerge."  "Also  to  immerse, 
as  we  immerse  things  for  the  sake  of  dyeing  or  washing  them  in  water !  " 
No  dip.  But  after  we  exposed  his  blunders  he  at  least  after  that  slips 
in  dip  for  "  immergo''  repeatedly !  He  leaves  out  their  New  Testament 
"abluo,  lavo." 

We  append  the  definitions  of  these  lexicons,  all  copied  from  the 
originals  directly. 

1.  Scapula,  1579,  ed.  1820,  Londoni:  "Baptidzo,  mergo,  sen  imyyiergo, 
id  quce  tingendi,  aid  ahluendi  gratia  aquoi  im.mergimus.  Plut.,  etc.  Item, 
tnergo,  submergo,  abruo  aqua.  Item,  ahliio,  lavo  (Marc,  vii  [4]  ;  Luc. 
xi  [38]. 

2.  Hedericus,  ed.  1825:  ^^  Baj)tidzo,rnergo,imviergo,  aqua  ahruo ;  (2) 
ahluo,  lavo;  (3)  baptizo,  significato,  sacro."  The  first  classic  cited  for 
"  immerse  "  is  Helidorus,  a  late  author ;  second  one  is  Plutarch — long 
after  Christ. 


LEXICONS    ON    BAPTIDZO.  153 

4.  Among  Christians,  to  baptize."*  Here  *^shed  forth" 
{hrecho)  pour  upon  [cheo  to,  pour,  epi  upon],  etc.  are  given 
by  this  great  author,  a  native  Greek. 

3.  Schrevellius,  ed.  1814:  '•  Baptidzo,  nierf/o,  abluo,  lavo ;  Angl.  hop- 
tize.'" 

4.  Pasor,  xvi,  44:  "Bajytidzo,  immergo,  abhio,  baptizo  (Matt,  iii,  11)," 
etc.     He  shows  it  applies  to  sufferings  in  New  Testament  also. 

Here  we  have  these  few  old  abridgments  of  Stephanus  and  Morell 
showing  that  Baptidzo — 

1.  Xever  meant  dip  any  where. 

2.  Never  meant  immerse  till  in  late  Greek. 

3.  Never  meant  immerse  in  the  New  Testament  any  where  where 
the  rite  occurs. 

4  Had  only  the  force  of  cleanse,  wash,  baptize,  without  regard  to 
mode  in  the  New  Testament. 

"*  Gazes  was  a  native  of  Melias,  Thessaly.  He  was  educated  at  Yen- 
ice,  traveled  over  Europe ;  was  one  of  the  most  learned  of  Greeks ;  was 
a  member  of  the  committee  that  framed  and  signed  the  Declaration  of 
Grecian  Independence.  He  put  forth  his  lexicon,  founded  on  Schnei- 
der's, with  changes  and  improvements,  at  Venice,  three  volumes  quarto, 
which  the  learned  Hilarion  followed,  who,  with  the  approval  of  his 
archbishop,  revised  the  translation  of  the  Bible  by  the  British  and  For- 
eign Bible  Society.  Here  is  his  definition  in  full:  Bairrli^cj:  M.  go  [(Sa-n- 
Tcj).  I^v;(va  (3ovT0)  ti  fieoa  elg  tl  Kal  hrevdev  ava  tov.  Bpe^O)  ri,  wotiI^o, 
£7r/.^YW«j,  Xoiio).  2.  'AvrTiO)  fiovro)  elg  to  vcpov  ayyeiov  ri  6ia  va  £«;6d/lA(j.  3. 
IIai'I'w  rag  x^lpag,  rj  "kovofiaL.     4.  BaTrr/^w,  Tzapa  Xpiariavolg,  etc. 

Dr.  T.  J.  Conant,  with  Gazes  and  Kouma  before  him,  suppresses  all 
their  definitions  that  were  in  serious  debate,  thus,  as  published  by  Elder 
"Wilkes  in  Louisville  (Debate,  pp.  478-9). 

November  18,  1870. 
To  Wm.  H.  WYECiiorr,  LL.D.,  Cor.  Sec'y  of  Am.  Bible  Union  : 

My  Dear  Sir — Your  friend  asks,  "What  is  the  definition  of  /?a7rr/(^w 
and  of  l3a7TTta/xa,  as  given  by  each  of  the  following  lexicographers,  viz, 
Hesychius,  of  the  fourth  century;  Suidas,  of  the  tenth ;  Zonaras,  of  the 
tentli  or  twelfth  ;  and  Gaze  of  the  seventeenth  ? 

Suidas  has  only  baptidzo.  He  gives  no  definition  of  the  word,  and 
only  says  it  is  used  with  the  accusative  case.  Gaze  defines  it,  '  to  dip 
repeatedly ' ;  hence,  for,  to  drench,  to  wash,  to  bathe." 

Yery  truly  yours,  ^  j^  Cokant. 

How  can  a  man  act  thus?  Yet  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  528),  aft*  r  I 
had  expo-ed  Dr.  Conant,  suppresses  all  the  above  facts,  by  pretending 


151  BAPTISM. 

19.  Parkhurst.^  ^^Baptidzo:  To  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge 
ill  water,"  etc.  He  supports  immersion,  then  says,  "3. 
To  baptize,  to  immerse  in,  or  wash  with,  water  in  token 
of  purification  from  sin,"  etc.  Then,  "V.  In  a  figurative 
sense,  '  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'  It  denotes  the 
miraculous  effusion  [pouring  out]  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
the  apostles  and  other  believers,  as  well  on  account  of  the 
abundance  of  his  gifts  (for  anciently  the  Avater  was  co- 
piously poured  on  those  who  were  baptized,  or  they  them- 
selves were  plunged  therein)",  etc.f 

20.  Walseus:  "Indifferently,  sprinkling  or  immer- 
sion.":!: 

21.  Vossius  gives  immerse,  etc.,  then,  "III.  To  sprin- 
kle."§ 

22.  Arst  gives  as  a  proper  New  Testament  meaning, 
" sprinkling"  {perjusioneiii). 

Vossuis  above  cites  Matthew  iii,  11,  as  a  place  where 

the  baptism  was  by  sprinkling.     Alas,  when  immersion 

requires  such  a  defense !  ^[ 

that  such  meanings  as  "shed  forth,"  "besprinkle,"'  "pour  upon"  are 
'*  figurative  and  secondary  meanings  " ! 

*  We  would  not  quote  so  ordinary  a  lexicon  as  this,  but  that  immer- 
sionists  quote  him  so  often,  and,  like  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  281),  sup- 
press the  very  point  in  issue.     He  leaves  out  all  that  we  cite  above. 

t  Dr.  Graves,  A.  Campbell,  etc.,  alv/ays  cited  Parkhurst  as  support- 
ing the  Baptist  view. 

X  Aspersione  ayi  immersione  (Leigh's  Crit.  Sacra). 

^Adspergere  (Leigh's  Crit.  Sacra). 

^  I  went  to  the  pains  and  expense  to  send  to  New  York  and  Cam- 
bridge both,  and  secured  exact  copies  of  these  two  great  lexicons,  as 
they  had  been  so  incorrectly  quoted  on  all  sides.  Dr.  Conant  professed 
to  give  the  definitions  of  these  authors,  and  suppressed  all  the  very 
definitions  in  controversy  !  Dr.  Graves  tries  to  excuse  himself  for  doing 
the  same  by  shamelessly  calling  them  figurative  meanings  !  When  can 
we  settle  a  question  if  authors  act  thus  ? 

In  Carrollton  debate,  1875,  rev:ritten  by  Dr.  Graves  in  April  and 


LEXICONS    ON    BAPTIDZO.  155 

23.  Liddell  &  Scott  (classic),  ed.  1850.  ''Baptidzo:  To 
dip  repeatedly, dip  under;  middle  [voice]  to  bathe.  Plence 
to  steep,  Avet.  Metaphor[ically],^  soaked  in  wine;  to 
pour  upon,  drench,  over  head  and  ears  in  debt,  over- 
whelmed with  questions.  II.  To  dip  a  vessel  to  draw 
w^ater.     III.  To  baptize  (New  Testament) .^^ 

This  Avork  being  professedly  a  translation  of  the  great 
w'ork  of  Passow,  though  much  abridged  really,  was  pre- 
pared especially,  like  Donnegan,  Pickering,  and  Dunbar, 
for  popular  school  use.  But  the  Baptists  raised  such  a 
roar  of  disgust  over  the  words  ''  poured  upon,'^  that  the 
publishers  to  appease  their  fury  erased  them  in  subse- 
quent editions  in  England  and  the  United  States.  Drislcr 
has  tried  to  deny  this  (Carrollton  Debate,  p.  494-5),  but 
the  very  fact  that  they  also  erased  '^pour  [water  for  w^ash- 
ing'^]  out  of  their  edition  under  the  word  louo,  though 
still  retained  in  the  English  editions  and  quoted  by 
the  Baptist  Ingham,  on  Baptism,  p.  445,  the  work  most 
relied  on  by  Dr.  Graves  in  his  quotations,  shows  that 
it  was  the  Baptist  pressure  that  did  it.  On  louo  and 
its  connection  with  baptism  see  the  laver  argument, 
and  our  chapter  on  Wash.f  But  we  must  in  a  note  be- 
Maj^  1870  (Debate,  p.  283),  he  copies  Suidas  on  haptidzo  thus,  "  To  im- 
merse, to  immerge  to  dip,  to  dip  in,"  after  Dr.  Conant  had  told  him 
Suidas  does  not  define  it  at  all,  and  I  had  so  told  him.  He  copies  the 
errors  of  hosts  of  old  citations  in  this  way.     It  is  shameful. 

••■'ISrote  here,  "bathe"  and  "wet,"  as  well  as  "steep,"  are  not  put  as 
metaphorical  meanings.  Yet  Dr.  Graves  always  treats  such  as  meta- 
phorical— e.  g.  in  case  of  Gazes. 

t  Dr.  Graves  (Carrollton  debate)  eulogizes  this  work  so  much  that  it 
is  proper  to  add  more  than  its  character  entitles  it  to  at  our  hands.  No 
one  denies  its  excellence,  for  it  is  only  an  abridged  translation  of  a  great 
work,  with,  of  course,  a  few  additions  on  a  few  unimportant  words,  com- 
paratively speaking.  Liddell  &  Scott  first  define  haptidzo  as  we  quote  it, 
and  boast  of  their  lexicon  in  a  way  soon  to  be  quoted.  1.  The  first  def- 
inition is  "  to  dip  repeatedly."    Is  that  the  priynary  meaning  of  haptidzo? 


156  BAPTISM. 

low  give  some  facts  on  Liddell  &  Scott's  Lexicon  that 
Avill  not  only  throw  light  upon  its  claims  on  this  point, 
but  also  shed  much  light  on  the  history  of  this  word  and 
philology.  If  it  was  the  scholarship  of  Europe  and 
America  that  forced  Liddell  &  Scott  to  erase  "  pour 
upon,"  why  all  these  other  changes — at  least  eleven  on 

Do  immersionists  dip  people  repeatedly  for  baptism  ?  O,  but  he  took 
that  out!  Well,  then,  if  he  blundered  on  that  point  so  seriously,  n^ay  he 
not  blunder  on  others  ?  2.  He  now  has  that  part  thus,  "  To  dip  in  or 
under  water  (Aristoph.  of  ships),  to  sink  them"  ( Polj'b.  ii,  51,  etc.). 
Well,  this  is  the  last  edition.  Is  it  better  than  the  first?  If  it  is  only 
"  dip  in  "  water,  it  never  means  that,  nor  does  he  cite  a  case  where  it 
does.  It  is  "of  ships,  to  sink  them."  Do  ships  that  only  dip  sink? 
Never.  If  they  sink,  it  is  not  dip,  for  to  dip  is  to  put  in,  partly  or 
wholly,  and  immediately  withdraw,  take  out.  He  cites  the  same  passage 
to  support  this  definition  that  he  cited  for  the  former.  3.  He  then  gave 
"  (2)  to  draw  water."  Where  does  it  mean  "  to  draw  water  "  ?  He  cites 
no  case  of  haptidzo  for  that.  But  he  erased  that  also.  Did  he?  Wrong 
again,  then!  Mark  that  four  changes.  Well,  he  had  "steep"  in  that 
edition.  5.  O,  but  he  took  "  steep  "  out !  Did  he  ?  That  makes  five 
changes.  6.  But  he  had  "  wet "  as  a  meaning.  But  he  took  that  out. 
That  makes  six  changes !  Pretty  good,  this ;  surely  he  is  reliable  I  He 
has  taken  out  so  much  good  Baptists  will  sleep  soundly  now.  As  he 
professed  to  follow  Passow's  correct  method,  and  "  make  each  article  a 
history  of  the  word,"  surely  he  will  stop  now;  for  if  he  did  this  he 
could  hardly  blunder  much.  7.  But  he  had  "  drench  "  as  a  meaning. 
O,  but  he  took  that  out.  Indeed !  'J'hen  Baptists  can  nod  refreshingly, 
for  this  marks  eight  changes  on  one  little  word.  But  he  does  not  stop. 
8.  In  the  first  edition  it  was  "  overwhelmed  with  questions."  In  the 
second  edition  that  meaning  is  changed  [ ! !  ]  to  "a  boy  drowned  with 
questions "  !  Nine  changes,  and  worse  still.  "  Drowned  with  ques- 
tions "  !  That  ought  to  do.  Lexicons  always  render  it,  as  a  rule,  either 
"  confused"  or  "overwhelmed  with  questions."  But  in  the  last  edition 
he  changes  that  to  "  seeing  him  drowned  with  questions."  Ten  changes, 
and  the  same  one  citation  in  Plato  given  to  sustain  these  changes  !  Will 
not  ten  changes  do?  No!  10.  In  the  first  edition  it  meant  (2)  "to  dip 
a  vessel,  to  draw  water."  Now  he  has  "to  draw  wine  from  bowls  in 
cups"  (of  course  by  dipping  them)..  In  the  Greek  of  this  jDassage  it  is 
simply  that  they  baptized,  i.  e.  became  drunk,  out  of  [e/c]  the  great  wine- 
jars,"  etc.  (See  the  passage  examined  under  classic  citations.)  There 
is  no  dip  in  hapiidzo — never.     It  is  due  to  Liddell  &  Scott  to  say  they 


LEXICONS   ON   BAPTIDZO.  11)7 

one  word?  Why  did  not  that  scholarship  force  Suicer, 
Swarzius,  Stokius^  Schneider,  Schaetgennius,  Schleusner, 
to  talve  out  pour,  sprinkle,  etc.,  found  in  all  their  editions, 
or  words  equivalent  to  both?  And  why  allow  the  still 
later  Passow,  Host,  Palm,  and  Pape,  late  as  1874,  to  put 
in  both  "sprinkle"  and  "pour  upon''  in  lexicons  used 
universally  by  the  great  scholars  of  all  countries  ? 

24.  Swarzius.  *  '^Baptidzo:  To  baptize,  immerse,  to 
overwhelm,  to  dip  into,  to  wash  by  immersing.  Some- 
times to  sprinkle,  to  besprinkle,  to  pour  upon,"  etc. 
apologize  for  their  lexicon  by  saying,  "For  tlie  most  part  we  had  only 
spare  hours  to  bestow  "  on  the  work — "  time  was  limited  "  (Preface,  xvii). 
But  they  say  they  "  always  sought  to  give  the  earliest  authority  for  its 
first "  meaning.  Yet  the  earliest  they  give  for  immerse,  i.  e.  "  sink,"  is 
Polybius,  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  hundred  and  sixty  years  before 
Christ.  The  earliest  for  "  dip  "  is  long  after  Christ,  and  a  false  render- 
ing. They  tell  us  that  there  are  few  words  that  do  not  change  their 
meanings  in  the  downward  course  of  time  (2  Preface,  xx).  Also  that  a 
word  occurs  in  Homer  often  only  in  a  metaphorical  sense  that  occurs  in 
a  literal  sense  first  in  Plato.  This  is  correct,  and  is  well  said.  Baptidzo 
meets  us  first  in  metaphorical  use  in  Pindar,  and  never  occurring 
in  an  extant  author  in  a  literal  sense  till  once  in  Aristotle.  All  these 
things  will  be  given  in  due  time.  But  hear  L.  &  S.  (Preface,  xx)  : 
"After  the  Attic  writers,  Greek  underwent  a  great  change."  This  change 
he  notes  as  complete  in  Polyhius  and  all  later  writers.     Note  well,  then, 

that  NO  LEXICON   IN  EXISTENCE  GIVES  IMMEKSE  OR  DIP  AS  A   MEANING 

OF  BAPTIDZO  EARLIER  THAN  Polybius,  Diodorus  Siculus,  AND  Plu- 
tarch, Polybius  being  the  earliest.  Liddell  &  Scott  do  not  give  "im- 
merse" in  theirs  at  all,  while  Stephanus,  Scapula,  Pasor,  Hedericus. 
do  not  give  dip  at  all,  as  either  a  classic  or  Bible  meaning.  Liddell 
&  Scotl  give  a  catalogue  of  their  authors,  that  we  may  know  the  cen- 
tury and  age  in  which  they  wrote;  that  we  may  "determine  the  time 
of  a  word's  first  usage,  and  of  its  subsequent  changes  of  signification." 
This  shows  what  they  mean  by  primary  meaning.  Hence  dip  being  sup- 
ported by  no  early  authority  in  L.  &  S.'s  estimation,  it  is  no  "  primary  " 
meaning. 

"*See  this  lexicon,  a  large  one  indeed,  and  of  high  standing,  quoted 
correctly,  and  word  for  word  as  above,  in  Ingham's  Hand-book  on 
Baptism  (Baptist  work,  p.  40);  and  in  Booth's  (a  Baptist)  Pedobaptist 
(in  Baptist  Library,  p.  351-2). 


158  BAPTISM. 

25.  E.  Leigh^s  Oritica  Sacra  (Lexicon)  New  Testament. 
^'Baptidzo :  To  baptize  (occurs  thus  often),  from  bapto,  to 
wet,  to  plunge,  etc.,  and  primarily  may  signify  any  kind 
of  washing,  or  immersion,  which  may  be  in  water- vessels 
in  which  we  immerse  linen.  Yet  generally  and  very  fre- 
quently it  is  taken  also  for  any  kind  of  washing,  cleans- 
ing, or  purification,  even  of  that  where  is  no  immer- 
sion, as  Matthew  iii,  11,  22;  Mark  vii,- 4,  etc.,  etc."* 
He,  then,  quoting  a  number  of  texts  in  support  of  this, 
quotes Vossius  where  it  is,  "III.  To  sprinkle  or  cleanse 
the  body  of  any  one  sacramentally  (Matt,  iii,  11).'^  f 

26.  Suicer,  whom  Dr.  Smith  thinks  the  best  lexicon 
ever  prepared  for  the  interpretation  of  New  Testament 
words,  and  certainly  for  its  purpose  the  ablest  extant, 
elaborates  the  word  through  a  series  of  large  folio  pages 
in  its  patristic  use.  He  tells  us  baptldzo  is  stronger  than 
epipoladzo,  to  swim  lightly,  and  "  less  than  dunein;^^  but  as 
Conant  and  Carson  J  crush  this  silly  theory  of  Beza,  Vos- 
sius, Suicer,  etc.,  we  need  not  quote  it  so  often  in  the  old 
writers.  Then,  pursuing  the  view  of  the  old  school,  he 
says,  as  Beza  does  in  substance,  ''  But  because  any  thing 
is  accustomed  to  be  mersed  or  dipped  that  it  may  be 
washed  and  cleansed,  hence  it  occurs  as  taval  [tabhat]  m 
the  Hebrew,  which  the  Seventy  translate  (2  Kings  v,  14) 

*  BaTTTi^u,  baptizo,  scepe  ...  a  jSarrrcj,  tingo,  mergo,  etc.,  et  primario 
signlficet  isiiusmodi  loUojiem  seu  immersionem,  quce  in  vasis  aquariis  sit, 
quibus  lintea  immergimus ;  iamen  largius  et  latins  etiam  sumitur  pro 
quocunque  genere  ahliitionis,  prolutionsi  seu  mundationis,  etiam  illius,  cui 
nulla  iinmersionis  species  adest;  ut  Matt,  iii,  11,  et  xx,  22;  Marc,  vii,  4, 
etc.,  etc. 

t  III.  Aspergere  seu  abluere  corpus  alicujus  sacramentaliter  (Matt, 
iii,  11).  To  cite  the  number  of  times  that  Dr.  G.  misquotes  Leigh 
would  be  a  waste  of  paper.  Leigh,  after  the  above,  cites  a  number  of 
authors  oi  both  sides  of  the  question  up  to  his  time,  and  Dr.  G.  cites  the 
immersionists  invariably,  as  Dr.  Leigh! ! 


LEXICONS  ON  BAPTIDZO.  109 

by  bantidzOj  and  is  taken  for  rachats,  which  is  to  wash  ; 
similarly  in  Greek  Ho  baptidzein/  by  a  metalepsis  is  used 
for  the  same  [lavare,  to  wash],  as  Judith  xii,  8  (?)  [7]  ;  Si- 
rach  xxxiv,  30 ;  Luke  xi,  38/^  He  then  shows  the  fathers 
use  it  for  immerse  also  in  vast  numbers  of  cases  after  the 
fourth  century.  Then  "  the  thing  signified  is  represented 
l^y  immersion  or  sprinkling.'^* 

27.  Schneider,  the  next  best  classic  lexicon  issued, 
Leibzig,  1819.  Baptidzo,  from  bapto  :  I  dip  under ;  thence 
as  brecko  [i.  e.  moisten,  shed  forth,  sprinkle.]  Also  meta- 
phorically to  be  thoroughly  drunk,  overwhelm  with  debts, 
etc.  [classics  given]  ;  ...  to  wash,''  etc. 

28.  Wolfius:  '^This  word  \baptidxo,  Luke  xi,  38] 
means  washing  done  by  sprinkling.''  f 

29.  Passow.  The  great  Passow,  the  master  critic  of 
all  classic  lexicons,  to  whom  Liddell  &  Scott,  Pickering, 
and  all  others  now  profess  to  look  for  aid,  we  reserve  as 
the  last  Greek  lexicon  quoted,  next  to  the  Thesaurus  of 
Stephens  the  largest — three  large  volumes,  the  first  con- 
taining eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-four  double-column 
pages,  fine  print — thus  deposes  :  '^  Baptidzo,  from  bapto  : 
1.  Oft  and  repeatedly  to  immerse,  submerse,  with  eis 
[into]  and  pros  tl,  in  respect  to  any  thing.  .  .  Thence  to 
moisten,  to  wet,  sprinkle,  hoi  bebaptismenoi,  translate, 
made  drunk,  vino  madidi  [Latin,  soaked  with  wine]. 
Generally  to  besprinkle,  to  pour  upon,  to  overwhelm,  to 
burden  with  taxes,  with  debts  (oppress),  to  confuse  with 

-Thesaurus  Eccles.  E.  Pat.  Grsecis,  2  vols.,  folio,  1728 — Ees  signifi- 
cata,  quce  per  immersioyieyn  aid  aspersionem  adutnhratur. 

t  Ed.  1841,  p.  489,  vol.  1.— BaTrWCw  (/^aTrrw),  oft  u.  wiederhalt  ein- 
tauchen,  undertauchen.  E/f  w.  Trpof  Ti  Plut.  auch  zvtlvl  dah.  Benetzen, 
anfeuchten,  begiessen  .  .  .  betrunken,  mno  madidi,  iiber,  iibergiessen, 
uberschutten,  iiberhaufen,  mit  Abgaben,  mit  schulden  uberladen  mit 
fragen  iiberschuttet  (2  Schopfen,  3  taufen,  med.),  sich  taufen  lossenj 
auch  baden,  waschen. 


IGO  BAPTISM. 

questions.     2.  Pump  water.     3.  Baptize,  suffer  oneself  to 
be  baptized,  also  to  bathe,  to  wash."* 

30.  Rost  and  Palm,  in  three  volumes,  the  latest  save 
Pape.  '^Baptidzo:  fOft  and  repeatedly  to  immerse,  to  sub- 
merse. ...  To  moisten,  to  wet,  to  sprinkle,  made  drunk, 
vino  madidi.  Generally  to  besprinkle,  to  pour  upon,J  to 
overwhelm,  to  burden  with  taxes,  with  debts,  to  oppress. 
(2)  Draw  [or  pump]  water.  (3)  To  baptize,  to  suffer  one- 
self to  be  baptized;  also  to  bathe,  to  wash."  We  close  this 
illustrious  list  with  the  latest  and  distinguished  lexicogra- 
pher, Prof  W.  Pape,  of  Berlin,  1874,  in  three  volumes. 

31.  Pape.  "Baj)tidzo:%  To  immerse,  to  submerse, 
Plut.  [extracts  and  renderings  given  to  sustain  this  all 
from  late  Greek];  to  moisten  [or  wet],  to  besprinkle  [or 
pour  upon,  to  besprinkle^];  [hoi  hehaptismenoi\  those 
drunk,  Plato.     To  overwhelm  with  debts,  Plutarch." 

'^Verhitni  hoc  lationem  inferat,  aspersione.  factam.  Conf.  .  .  .  Doy- 
lingii — Observat.  Sacr,  Wolfii  Philol.  et  Crit.,  editio  tertia,  i,  p.  658. 
A  semi-lexicon  and  expositor  of  vast  learning. 

t  German  same  as  in  Passow,  last  quoted,  which  see.  Liinemann's 
Lat.  Deut.  Hand-worterbuch,  183],  Aq^wq^  ]j  erf  undo,  begiessen,  oder  be- 
netzen.  Fundo  [pour]  by  giessen  oder  ausgiessen,  etc.;  auch  schiitten,  etc. 

X  Ingham,  Baptist,  in  his  Hand-book  on  Baptism,  London,  recently 
issued,  says,  page  94,  "  Thus  Professor  Eost,  in  his  German  Greek-Lex- 
icon, revised  with  the  assistance  of  a  native  Greek,  .  .  .  under  the 
words  wash,  wet,  pour,  and  the  like  [has]  waschen,  heneizen,  giessen,  be- 
giessen .  .  .  (Chris.  Kev.  vol.  iii,  p.  97.)"  So  here  they  agree  th&t gies- 
sen, begiessen  is  used  for  "2^our,"  not  "  pour  over,"  as  Dr.  Graves's  friend 
Toy  rendered  it  to  conceal  the  truth,  and  by  Eost  in  the  above  lexicon. 

§  BaTrWCw.  1.  Eintauchen,  undertauchen ;  Plat.,  Qutest.  Nat.  10; 
[l/io'ia  echiffe,  etc.  (Pol.  viii,  8,  etc.),  gcheint  fiaTrriCerai  er  wird  auf  dem 
Meer  herumgetrieben  —  anfeuchteyi,  begiessen.  Oi  ftedaTTTiao/uevot,  die 
betrunkenen  Plat,  mit  schulden  iiberladen  Plut.  da  ich  den  knaben  schon 
gantz  tzeigedeckt  sot,  durch  die  Sophisterein  des  Gegners,  Plat.  2. 
E/c  niduv  (Schoffen,  Plut.  iii,  N.  T.  u.  K.  S.),  taufen.  Med.  sich  taufen 
lassen,  lidivTiafia  die  Taufe,  N.  T. 

^  Like  the  Latin  perfundere  "  begeisgen  "  means  both  to  pour  upon 
and  to  besprinkle — perfuse.    See  the  word  in  Passow,  Eost,  and  Palm. 


LEXICONS    ON    BAPTIPZO.  IC)] 

2.  "  To  draw  water  "  [out  of  any  thing],  etc. 

3.  "  In  the  New  Testament  and  ecclesiastical  historians, 
to  baptize.  ^Middle  voice,  to  suifer  oneself  to  be  baptized. 
Baptisma,  the  baptism,  in  New  Testament.'^ 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  what  are  we  to  think  of  the 
cry  that  no  lexicon,  ancient  or  modern,  ever  gave  sprinkle 
or  pour  as  a  meaning  of  bapto  or  haptichof   Notice  well — 

1.  That  every  one  of  these  lexicons,  save  two,  and  the 
great  authors  among  the  fathers  who  speak  lexicograph- 
ically, out  of  the  thirty- one,  give  either  sprinkle  or  pour  or 
(Schneider  and  Robinson)  words  equivalent  to  both,  as 
meanings  and  uses  of  baptidzo.  The  two  exceptions  are 
Sophocles,  who  gives  "  perform  ablution,  to  bathe,  bathed 
in  tears,'^  where  it  is  "baptize  with  tears ^^ — surely  not  im- 
mersion; and  Stephanus,  who  never  gives  dip  as  a  mean- 
ing at  all,  who  never  gives  immerse  as  a  New  Testament 
meaning,  but  expressly  gives  the  New  Testament  meaning 
thus:  ^'Abluo,  lavo^^ — only  that,  "to  cleanse,  to  wash." 
Whenever  lavo  is  modal  it  is  "besprinkle,"  and  every 
Latin  lexicon  we  ever  saw  gives  that  as  a  prominent  mean- 
ing. Baptize  "with  tears"  is  certainly  affusion.  Hence, 
thus — 

2.  Every  one  of  the  thirty-one  authorities  sustain  affu- 
sion as  baptism. 

3.  Scapula,  Pasor,  Schrevellius,^  Hedericus,  Morell, 
etc.,  etc.,  mere  abridgments  of  Stephanus,  all  give  "  abluo, 
lavo/'  from  Stephanus,  as  the  only  meanings  it  has  as  an 
ordinance  in  the  New  Testament,  not  one  giving  dip  or 
immerse  as  a  New  Testament  meaning.  Abluo  is  "to 
cleanse"— no  special  mode.  Lavo  is  to  wash,  bathe,  be- 
sprinkle— never  dip  or  immerse.     If  our  opponents  insist 

*  Schrevellius  giving  simply  immergo  for  classic  usage.  Baptize  and 
to'Orrrwash,  bathe,  besprinkle,  as  its  N.  T.  meaning. 

n 


1G2  BAPTISM. 

Oil  the  classic  lexicons  as  proper  authorities  here  they 
must  abide  their  decision,  that  in  the  New  Testament  hap- 
tidzo  is  never  modal  save  when  it  is  by  sprinkling — never 
dip,  never  immerse. 

4.  Not  a  lexicon  on  earth  gives  abluo,  lavo  as  a  classic 
meaning  of  baptidzo. 

5.  If  six  men  testify  in  court  that  A  killed  B,  using  a 
generic  or  general  term,  and  twenty-one  good  witnesses 
testify  that  A  killed  B,  shooting  him  through  the  head, 
will  not  all  say  there  is  no  discrepancy,  that  what  the  six 
meant  by  kill  the  twenty-one  mean  by  their  terms?  And 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  kill  embraces  shoot  as  one  of  its 
modes  of  destroying;  that  shooting  eifects  killing;  that  in 
that  case  they  mean  to  agree  with  the  twenty -one?  So 
these  lexicons,  Scapula,  Stephanus,  Pasor,  Schrevellius, 
Hedericus  and  many  more  mean  by  '^  abluo,  lavo^'^  what 
these  others  do  by  sprinkle,  pour,  etc.,  etc.     Hence, 

6.  The  great  school  of  lexicography  is  unanimously 
with  us  on  this  question. 

7.  If  Blackstone,  Coke,  Kent,  Greenleaf,  Chitty,  etc. 
all  agree  on  a  point  of  law,  sustained  by  the  Pandects 
and  Cicero;  if  Johnson,  AYalker,  Richardson,  Worcester, 
and  Webster  all  substantially  agree  in  the  meaning  of  a 
word,  Avould  not  that  end  controversy  on  that  point?  We 
would  hang,  convict  a  president,  go  to  war,  all  on  such 
testimony,  if  the  case  depended  only  on  whether  it  were 
so  or  not,  and  such  testimony  were  adduced  that  it  was  so. 
Note  again — 

8.  Those  lexicons  were  all  made  either,  first,  by  im- 
mersionists  (though  they  dipped  their  infants)  when  im- 
mersion was  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the  only  popular 
mode — Buddseus,  1529;  Stephanus,  1572;  or,  second,  by 
tliose  who  merely  abridged  the  work  of  Stephens,  copying 


LEXICONS  ON  BAPTIDZO.  1G3 

him  word  for  word  generally  throughout,  but  leaving  off 
references  that  so  fill  up  the  space — Scapula,  Pasor,  He- 
dericus,  Schrevellius,*  etc.,  etc.;  or,  third,  by  those  who 
abridged  and  diluted  in  translating  Stephens's  Latin  into 
English  liberally — Donnegan,  Dunbar,  Pickering,  etc.;  or, 
fourth,  by  those  who  still  felt  their  influence  and  did  not 
wholly  start  out  scientifically — Schneider,  Passow,  Kouma, 
Gazes,  etc. — yet  made  a  great  advance. 

9.  Not  one  shows  that  dip  or  immerse  was  the  primary 
meaning.  They  do  not  treat  of  primaries,  but  aim  at  pop- 
ular, current  meanings.  The  very  fact  that  nearly  all  their 
citations  of  proof-texts  are  from  the  later  classic  Greek, 
and  not  one  cites  the  earliest  nor  takes  note  of  it  on 
either  hapto  or  baptidzo  in  order,  nor  on  the  latter  at  all, 
demonstrates  that  point.  Had  they  been  treating  of  pri- 
mary meanings  common  decency  would  have  compelled 
them  to  take  the  primal  occurrences  of  baptidzo,  and  that 
first,  whereas  not  one  of  them  cites  the  earliest  cases  of  it 
at  all. 

10.  That  this  was  so,  further  appears  from  their  entire 
want  of  harmony  in  defining  hapto  and  baptidzo.  Not  one 
of  the  great  body  of  old  classic  lexicons  gives  dip.  as  a 
meaning  of  baptidzo  —  NOT  one,  including  Stephanus, 
Scapula,  Hedericus,  Pasor,  Schrevellius,  Robertson, 
nor  Ewing,  Wahl,  Schaetgennius,  Arst,  Morell,  and 
many  others.  But  Carson  says  it  means  nothing  but  dip. 
Of  all  the  above  not  one  gives  dip.  Arst  gives  "  over- 
whelm'' first;  Schrevellius  and  others  give  baptize  first; 
Ewing  gives  "cover"  first  —  a  meaning  it  never  has. 
Schleusner  gives  definitions  wholly  different  in  his  two 
great  lexicons;  the  one  for  the   Greek  of  the  old  Testa- 

■•■  A.  Campbell  tells  us  originally  Schrevellius  had  only  mergo,  sink, 
and  lavo. 


164  BAPTISM. 

ment,  the  other  for  that  of  the  New.  They  may  be  said 
to  define  baptidzo  radically  different — being  wholly  unlike. 
Wahl,  a  learned  contemporary  of  Schleusner  defines  it  in 
his  first  edition,  first,  lavo,  wash,  then  in  brackets,  classic 
use,  demerse,  submerse;  then,  "second  (New  Testament 
use),  immerse."  In  a  second  edition  the  same  year,  1829, 
he  reverses  that,  adds  ^^  overwhelm/^  '^imbue,'^  takes  out 
"demerse,  submerse,''  adds  its  New  Testament  use  as  equiv- 
alent to  the  '^tTTTO)  [nipto)  of  New  Testament  (Mark  vii,  3, 
e.  g.).  But  in  1831,  only  two  years  later,  he  brings  out  an 
edition,  clianges  it  again,  takes  out  "'immerse"  from  one 
place  of  New  Testament  usage,  heading  a  list  of  refer- 
ences, and  puts  in  its  place  sprinkle  (perfundo).  He  is 
the  strongest  immersionist  of  all  New  Testament  lexicog- 
raphers. Yet  how  can  we  rely  on  such  changes  as  these? 
If  scientific  accuracy  and  philological  laws  were  his  guide 
this  could  not  be.  Liddell  &  Scott  defines  it  "dip  repeat- 
edly," "wet,  moisten,  pour  upon,"  etc.  Under  Baptist 
pressure  they  erase  wet  or  "  moisten,  pour  upon "  from 
later  editions.  Baptists  feel  delighted  at  this.  Now  they 
have  a  lexicon  that  suits  them.  What  a  shout  they  raised ! 
They  declare,  then,  that  no  definition  is  reliable  that  is  not 
supported  by  one  or  more  references  to  Greek  writers 
where  it  has  the  meaning  given.  Alas  for  that,  for  the 
first  definition  by  Liddell  &  Scott  can  not  be  supported 
by  a  single  citation  in  the  whole  re])ublic  of  letters.  It 
no  where  means  "to  dip  repeatedly."^  Yet  this  is  his 
first  definition.  Through  a  number  of  editions  there  it 
has  stood,  a  living  falsehood  stalking  down  through  the 
years  to  tell  what  blunders  can  be  committed  where  no 
scientific  method  is  adopted  on  the  word.  They  are  all 
equally  wild  on  bapto,  equally  antagonistic,  untrue  as  to 
*  See  new  Graves-Ditzlev  Debate,  p.  527,  401-2. 


LEXICONS   ON    BAPTIDZO.  165 

method.  Clearly  and  evidently  the  lexicons  never  aimed 
at  tracing  primitive,  but  current  meanings,  as  exhibited 
especially  in  later  writers.  Nay,  the  fact  that  Wahl, 
Schleusner,  Liddell  &  Scott,  Swarzius,  etc.,  etc.  do  all 
begin  with  the  later  Greek  writers,  not  a  lexicon  in  the 
world  beginning  with  the  earlier — not  to  say  earliest,  as 
they  all  ought  —  shows  the  immense  influence  Buddseus, 
Stephanus,  and  Robert  Constantine  exerted  on  our  lex- 
icography through  their  ignorance  of  earlier  writers. 

11.  To  the  thoughtful  scholar  it  is  a  most  important 
matter  that  no  lexicon  has  yet  given  Aristotle's  use  of 
baptidzo,  the  first  literal  use  of  it  known,  nor  that  of  the 
Greeks  before  Plato.  It  shows  that  where  Stephanus 
and  Buddseus  stopped  on  that  word  their  successors  in  the 
lexical  work  tarried. 

It  is  a  favorite  dodge  of  immersionists  that  wash, 
cleanse  {lavo,  ahluo),  as  well  as  moisten,  sprinkle,  pour,  are 
metaphorical  meanings  of  baptidzo;  so  meant  by  the  lexi- 
cons.    To  this  we  reply — 

(1)  By  the  whole  body  of  the  old  lexicons,  Buddseus, 
Stephanus,  Scapula,  Hedericus,  Pasor,  Schrevellius,  Mo- 
rell,  etc.,  lavo,  ahluo  (wash,  cleanse)  were  the  only  New 
Testament  definitions  given.  Hence  were  literal,  real 
meanings.  Whether  held  as  derived  meanings  or  not — 
and  they  did  so  hold — derived  meanings,  all  others  agree, 
are  as  literal  and  real  as  the  primary  meanings,  the  latter 
often  becoming  actually  obsolete.  Derived  meanings  are 
not  to  be  confounded  with  metaphorical  uses  of  meanings. 

(2)  The  "sprinkle"  and  "pour  upon''  are  as  literal 
meanings  as  the  immerse  in  those  lexicons,  so  meant  by 
them.  As  stated,  not  one  of  them  was  discussing  prima- 
ries, and  the  fact  that  they  all  date  immerse  as  a  late 
meaning  shows  that  clearly  enough. 


IGG  BAPTISM. 

12.  By  the  rule  Dr.  Graves  lays  down  since  these 
papers  were  prepared,  wash,  cleanse,  sprinkle,  pour,  as  the 
modes  of  the  wash,  cleanse,  are  the  primary  meanings  of 
baptidzo.  Not  only  so,  but  by  his  rule  they  are  the  only 
meanings.  Debate,  p.  322,  Dr.  Graves  says,  "As  deriva- 
tives sometimes  lose  tlie  last  shade  of  the  signification  of 
their  primitive  or  root-origin — as  tlngo  once  primarily 
meant  to  dip,  second,  to  dye,  now  it  has  lost  its  first,  and 
its  secondary  has  become  its  primary — we  are  compelled 
to  go  to  standard  Latin  authors  and  learn  the  signification 
they  attach  to  it." 

By  this  rule,  along  with  his  other,  that  the  first  mean- 
ing attached  by  lexicons  (Debate,  p.  253)  is  the  primary 
and  current  meaning,  wash,  cleanse,  effected  by  sprinkle, 
pour,  is  the  only  New  Testament  meaning  of  baptidzo;  for 
nine  tenths  of  all  the  lexicons  give  these  as  the  first  and 
only  New  Testament  meanings.  Vie  pass  by  the  absurd- 
ities of  the  above  as  well  as  its  untrue  assertion  on  tingo, 
as  it  is  fully  treated  elsewhere. 

13.  Our  position  harmonizes  all  the  facts  and  all  the 
meanings  of  baptidzo;  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  laws 
of  language,  the  principles  of  philology  in  all  languages, 
whether  Semitic  or  Aryan  (Indo-European),  and  hence 
can  not  be  wrong. 

14.  AVe  will  see  that  the  lexicography  of  Hebrew  and 
all  the  languages  of  the  earliest  versions  will  overwhelm- 
ingly support  affusion  as  the  apostolic  mode  of  baptism. 
We  reserve  them  till  w^e  treat  of  classic  use. 

15.  Hence  we  see  the  force  of  Carson\s  noted  words, 
"  My  position  is,  that  it  [baptidzo']  always  signifies  to  dip; 
never  expressing  any  thing  but  mode.  Now,  as  I  have 
all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against  me  in 
this  opinion,  it  will   be   necessary  to   say  a  word  or  two 


LEXICON'S  ON  BAPTIDZO.  1G7 

with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons.  Many  may  be 
startled  at  the  idea  of  refusing  to  submit  to  the  unani- 
mous authority  of  lexicons  as  an  instance  of  the  boldest 
iSkepticism^'  (pp.  55,  56).  Yes;  we  should  think  so.  He 
then  urges  that  lexicons  '^  are  not  an  ultimate  authority." 
*^ Actual  inspection"  of  the  places  where  it  occurs  must 
settle  its  meaning.  This  is  true;  but  had  not  they  done 
this  as  well  as  Dr.  C. 


168  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

PHILOLOGY. 

There  is  something,  as  already  shown,  inhering  in  the 
Bible  use  of  baptidzo  which  purify,  wash,  sprinkle,  immerse, 
dip,  separately  or  all  combined,  can  not  represent.  Had 
pnrify  or  sanctify  merely  been  meant,  kathairo,  kathaj-idzOy 
hagiadzo  would  have  been  used.  Had  wash  merely  been 
meant,  louo^  nipto,  pluno,  apokludzo  would  have  been  used. 
Had  inimersion  been  meant,  kataduo,  huthidzo,  pontidzoy 
katapontidzo,  enduo  would  have  been  used.  Had  sprinkle 
merely  been  meant,  raino,  rantidzo,  katajjosso,  or  p>^'oscheo, 
etc.  would  have  been  used.  No  other  word  than  baptidzo 
itself  does  or  can  represent  the  ordinance  in  its  full  and 
true  import.  No  other  word  perfectly  translates  it  as  it 
habitually  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Wash,  far  more 
properly  sprinkle,  more  perfectly  represents  it  in  Mark 
vii,  4,  and  Luke  xi,  38,  because  it  is  not  there  used  as  a 
heaven-sanctioned  rite,  and  it  was  a  mere  sprinkling  of 
water  for  traditional  baptism.  Immerse,  dip,  plunge, 
sprinkle,  pour  are  but  actions,  not  implying  necessarily 
any  religious  idea  or  fact,  nor  the  Unity,  power,  or  eflPect 
of  religious  truth;  nay,  not  the  element  itself — water. 
When,  therefore,  we  show  that  primarily  baptidzo  has  this 
or  derivatively  another  meaning,  as  a  word  a})plied  to  ex- 
press an  action,  it  does  not  follow  that  either  of  these 
meanings  will  fairly  represent  it  when  applied  to  a  rite. 
Such  a  thing  never  occurs  as  to  any  word.     The  original 


PHILOLOGY.  169 

Hebrew  for  circumcise,  paschal  feast,  etc.  are  illustra- 
tions. 

People  are  immersed,  dipped,  plunged  in  oil,  in  blood, 
in  mud,  in  filth,  in  trouble.  These  words  imply  merely 
actions  or  modes  of  doing,  and  are  but  parts  of  the  whole 
accomplished.  As  sprinkle,  pour  upon,  dip,  immerse, 
plunge  are  but  actions  by  which  some  fact  may  be  accom- 
plished, and  hence  are  but  a  part  of  the  thing  done  or  fact 
accomplished,  they  are  only  a  part  thereof  and  can  not  be 
equivalent  to  the  whole. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  philological  foundation  of  all 
the  assumptions  of  immersionists.    It  assumes — 

1.  That  immersion  is  a  primary  idea,  w'hich  is  impossi- 
ble and  absurd. 

2.  That  immersion  and  dip  are  exactly  the  same. 

3.  Thut  immersion  is  the  primary  meaning  of  baptidzo 
and  its  root,  bapto,  without  a  word  of  proof  oifered. 

4.  That  wash,  cleanse,  is  a  philological  effect  of  immer- 
sion, wdiich  will  be  found  to  be  against  all  the  facts  and 
science  of  language,  and  utterly  unhistoric  besides. 

Immersion  is  itself  a  compound  in  form  and  meaning 
and  a  derivative  in  thought.  The  English  of  immerse  is 
"sink  in.''* 

1.  The  idea  of  sinking  in  is  not  a  primary.  To  sink  in 
implies  pressure  and  a  yielding  element.  Hence  it  is  not 
a  primary  or  simple  idea.  In  different  languages  immer- 
sion is  often  a  derivative  from  press,  burden,  overburden, 
and  it  always  implies  that.  Whatever  falls  upon,  pours 
upon,  rolls  upon,  presses  down,  and  if  the  objects  receiving 
such  elements  are  in  a  condition  to  sink,  that  ensues  of 
course.    Whatever  may  fall  or  pour  upon  an  object,  there- 

*■/7^,  put  "im"  for  euphony,  and  mergo,  to  sink.  This  fact,  meaning 
"  sink  in,"  will  he  duly  elaborated  and  proved.  A.  Campbell,  Conant, 
Wilkes,  Graves,  all  support  it. 


170  BAPTISM. 

fore,  is  liable  to  immerse  it.  Hence  the  hosts  of  words  we 
shall  find  meaning  sprinkle,  pour,  etc.  that  come  to  mean 
immerse. 

2.  Mersion,  immersion,  is  so  far  from  implying  wash- 
ing, cleansing,  as  a  sequence,  that  it  does  not  involve  or 
imply  any  particular  element,  and  as  often  applies  to  filth, 
to  mud,  etc.  as  to  any  other  element. 

3.  Indeed  immersion  constantly  occurs  in  Latin,  in 
Greek,  Hebrew,  Syriac,  Persic,  Arabic,  German,  and  in 
English,  etc.  etc.,  where  just  the  reverse  of  wash,  cleanse, 
is  to  be  found.  Persons  and  things  are  immersed  in  mud, 
in  filth,  in  blood,  in  dye,  in  vats,  in  stenchy  pools,  in  slime. 
Hence  in  many  languages  it  means  to  contaminate,  defile, 
make  filthy.  Gesenius,  Castel],  and  Schindler  thus  define 
tama.^ 

4.  In  no  language  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge 
does  any  word  that  properly  and  primarily  implies  mer- 
sion, dipping  —  that  is,  used  generally  and  properly  for 
mersion,  immersion,  or  dipping — mean  to  wash,  cleanse, 
or  purify.  In  no  lexicon,  and  in  no  writer  in  Latin, 
Greek,  Hebrew,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Persic,  iEthiopic,  Chaldee, 
Italian,  Spanish,  German,  or  Portuguese,  did  we  ever  find 
a  passage  where  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge  meant  to  wash  or 
cleanse  or  purify.  No  lexicon  we  ever  saw  defines  any 
word  that  properly  and  strictly  meant  immerse,  dip,  or 
plunge  by  to  wash  or  cleanse  or  purify.  The  Hebrew 
tabha,  immerse,t  the  Greek  enduo,  hataduo,  2:)ontidzo,  bu- 

•;i:-X^*J^  tama,  Arabic,  to  immerse,  "defile,  to  contaminate"  (Ge- 
senius). "The  primary  idea  is  that  of  immersing"  (Gesenius).  Yet 
"unclean,  defiled,  polluted"  (Lev.  xv,  32;  xxi,  4;  Hos.  ix,  4). 

t  ^^^^  tabha;  Hottinger,  immersus ;  Gesenius,  immersit ;  Castell,  im- 
mersus ;  Schindler,  immersus;  so  Buxtorf,  etc.  Not  one  begins  tabhal 
with  immerse.  "^5.^,  mersit^  suhmersus  fult,  demersus  fuit,  im,  and  sub- 
onersus  aqua.     Castell,  Freytag,  Schindler. 


PHILOLOGY.  171 

thidzo,  katapontidzo,  immerse,  dupto,  kolumbao,  to  dip,* 
often  occur,  and  are  rendered  in  our  Bible  by  the  English 
of  immerse — '^to  sink,"  e.  g.  Exodus  xv,  5,  10;  Psalms 
cxxiv,  4;  Ixix,  2,  15;  liv,  9;  Ecclesiastes  x,  12;  Jeremiah 
ii,  2 ;  Matthew  xviii,  6 ;  xiv,  30 ;  1  Timothy  vi,  9 ;  Luke  v, 
7;  2  Maccabees  (Apoc.)  xii,  4. 


PRINCIPLES    OF    PHILOLOGY. 

The  following  words  in  Arabic  definitely  mean  to  im- 
merse, never  sprinkle,  rain,  or  pour:  1,  gamasa;  2,  ga- 
inara;  3,  amasa;  4,  dala;  5,  atta  (*Ji?) ;  6,  gar  a;  7,  gautsa, 
guts^ — seven  words  all  meaning  repeatedly  to  immerse; 
most  of  them  mean  to  immerse  in  water.  Yet  not  one  of 
them  ever  means  to  wash.  Not  one  of  them  ever  means 
to  intoxicate,  to  overflow,  overwhelm,  inundate,  intox- 
icate, make  drunk,  moisten,  wet,  rain — never  have  those 
meanings  that  so  perfectly  inhere  in  bapto  or  haptidzo — 
never  mean  stain,  dye,  color.  Notice  by  the  Latin  below 
that  often  immerse  comes  from  depress,  oppress,  and  words 
that  mean  to  immerse  or  dip  never  mean  to  wash,  etc. 
ONLY  where  sprinkle,  pour,  moisten,  etc.  are  the  primary 
meanings,  and  immerse  a  derived  meaning.  The  ^thi- 
opic  has  a  word  (maab)  for  immerse;  but  it  never  means 
wash,  cleanse,  wet,  intoxicate,  etc.     The  Persic  has  a  word 

■'•  AvTTTO),  taucheii,  imdertauehen ;  Passow,  Rost,  Palm,  Pope,  Pape  — 
dupto,  imdertauehen,  kephnlas  els  hudor. 

t  Arab.  DhiH,  demersit  eum  in  aquani,  demersH  semei  in  aquam,  mer- 
gantur,  etc,  1)2^  (gamara),  mersit,  submersiis  fuit,  demersus  fuit,  im-, 
submersus  aqua;  TSX"!  (Heb.  '"'11),  depressitimmersit  ve  in  aqua;  132?,  atta, 
oppressit,  demersit,  depresserunt  .  .  .  merserunt,  vii  demersus  in  aquam 
fuit,  semet  immersit,  com.pressio ;  111?,  Arab,  gora,  descendit,  depressua 
fuit,  demersus  fuit  (three  times  repeated),  depressus ;  Vii?,  Arab,  gautsa^ 
se  demersit  sub  aquam,  submersit.     Castell,  Schindler,  Freytag. 


172  BAPTISM. 

ghuta,  to  immerse  in  water ;  "^^  yet  it  never  means  to  wash, 
cleanse,  etc.  The  Hebrew  words  for  immerse  properly 
and  strictly  mean  primarily  to  impress,  depress,  then  im- 
merse. Thus  tabha,j  which  in  the  Bible  always  means  im- 
merse, kaphashyX  to  depress,  impress,  immerse ;  shaqah,§  to 
submerse,  depress  into  the  deep,  compress,  demerse.  The 
German  dip,  dip  under,  immerse,^  no  more  mean  to 
wash,  to  cleanse,  than  does  our  dip,  sink.  First,  it  is  re- 
markable too  from  the  standpoint  of  immersionists  that 
not  one  of  all  these  words  for  immerse  is  ever  used  in  all 
the  ancient  versions  translated  from  tlie  original  f  )r  bap- 
tize. It  is  well  to  notice,  second,  that  dip  never  comes 
from  immerse  in  all  these  words;  third,  that  all  words 
that  properly  and  certainly  mean  to  immerse,  submerse, 
not  only  never  mean  dip,  but  are  not  defined  by  tingo,  in- 
t'lngo  as  is  tahhal  and  hapto.  They  are  never  used  by  any 
lexicon  to  define  tahlia,  immerse.  In  Arabic  dahaha  means 
"to  depress  or  immerse  with  violence"  or  force,  while 
yachal  means  "  to  demerse,  and  make  filthy." 

Is  it  not  astonishing  that  men  of  learning  should  base 
their  main  arguments  on  supposed  laws  of  language  as- 
sumed to  be  fundamental,  being  the  foundation  on  which 
all  their  superstructure  rests,  so  absolutely  vain  and  a  pure 
delusion  ?  They  assume  that  wash,  cleanse,  is  the  effect  of 
immersion,  a  philological  effect  based  on  fact,  and  proceed 
from  that  standpoint  to  make  their  arguments,  Avhen  not 
an  instance  has  ever  been  adduced  to  vindicate  the  bold 

■^'Maah,  maha ;  ^thiopic,  suhmersit  (Castell);  Ghuta,  Persic,  in 
aquam  immergere,  demersio  in  aqnam  (Castell). 

■f^'^,  iabha,fgi,  injigi,  immergi  demergi  (Buxtorf,  Castell). 

t^'z'^,  knphash,  deprcssH  .  .  .  immersit  (Castell). 

g^'F^',  suhnersiis,  in  profundum  depressus,  eompressus  est,  demersit 

(Castell). 

II  Taiichen,  nndcriaucfien,  alnken. 


PHILOLOGY.  1/3 

assumption,  and  not  a  fact  in  the  whole  babbling  earth  can 
be  adduced  to  support  it.  Nay,  so  far  from  it  being  sup- 
ported, there  is  every  reason  why  the  reverse  should  be 
true,  since  immersion  is  so  far  from  pliilologically  imply- 
ing washing  that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  between 
the  two  ideas,  immersion  applying  as  readily  to  soiling, 
staining,  defiling,  and  corrupting  elements  as  purifying 
ones.  Indeed  Dr.  Conant  and  Prof  Mell,  of  Georgia,  tell 
us  truly  that  bapto  and  baptidzo  take  as  the  elements  into 
which  they  "put''  the  subject,  "honey,  wax,  .  .  .  gall, 
oil,  vinegar,  soup,  moist  earth,  broth,  fat,  filth"  (Mell, 
pp.  13,  14,  on  Baptism,  replying  to  Dr.  Summers).  Here 
every  element  named  defiles,  unless  the  vinegar  be  ex- 
cepted. Surely,  as  these  are  the  elements,  save  water,  into 
which  baptidzo  (for  it  takes  them  all;  bapto  takes  "dirt;'' 
both  take  "the  human  body,"  and  often  "blood")  intro- 
duces its  subjects  when  meaning  to  immerse,  it  argues 
poorly  for  wash  as  a  consequent  meaning.  Note  well,  in 
not  an  author  or  place  where  baptidzo  does  mean  to  im- 
merse does  it  ever  mean  to  wash,  cleanse,  or  purify. 

PHILOLOGY,    OR   SCIENCE    OF  LANGUAGE. 

While  on  the  one  hand  immerse  and  dip,  i.  e.  the  proper 
words  for  dip  or  immerse,  never  mean  to  wash,  cleanse, 
it  will  be  found  that  in  various  ancient  languages,  espe- 
cially in  all  those  in  which  the  Bible  was  originally  writ- 
ten and  its  earliest  versions  made,  the  words  for  wash,  both 
as  to  the  body  and  the  hands  and  face,  the  proper  words 
for  wash,  cleanse,  never  mean  to  dip,  immerse,  but  do  in 
most  cases  radically  mean — some  of  them,  to  sprinkle, 
others  to  moisten  where  it  is  by  falling  rain,  dew,  or  slight 
aspersion  of  liquid ;  or  as  in  other  cases,  words  are  used 


174  BAPTISM. 

meaning  to  pour,  shed  forth,  drop,  as  of  water;  or  as  in 
others  still  they  mean  wash,  pour,  sprinkle,  as  louo,  nipto. 
In  Hebrew  Ave  have  rachats,  wash,  pour;  kabas,  wash; 
while  matar,  to  rain,  wet  with  rain,  sprinkle,*  is  rendered 
by  nipto,  to  wash,  and  in  Arabic  is  ^Ho  sprinkle,  pour, 
rain,  wet,"  yet  to  wash,  to  cleanse. f  In  Arabic  gasala  is 
to  wash,  sprinkle,  perfuse ;  never  dip,  immerse.  It  is  the 
word  most  constantly  used  for  wash.  In  German  waschen, 
badeuj  wash,  bathe;  in  Latin  lavo,  abluo;  their  corresponding 
words  in  French,  Spanish,  Italian,  Portuguese  never  mean 
dip  or  immerse.  On  nipto,  pluno  (from  j^/wo,  to  moisten, 
wet,  rain),J  to  wash,  sprinkle,  louo,  wash,  pour,  sprinkle,§ 
see  the  fuller  facts  in  the  separate  chapter  on  Wash.  In 
^thiopic  rachats,  wash,  means  primarily  to  sweat,  per- 
spire, and  then  in  Arabic  next  it  means  to  wash,  to  cleanse, 
because  perspiring  profusely  cleanses.  We  see  wash  de- 
rived from  pour,  rain,  sprinkle,  sweat,  moisten — never 
from  immerse. 

The  English  Liddell  &  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon  gives 
under  ^'  louo,  wash,  pour  [water  for  washing'^].  Many  other 
authorities  support  the  same,  none  against.  See  chapter 
on  Wash. 

There  is  another  word  we  may  notice  in  Greek  that 
means  to  wash  as  well  as  to  w^et,  moisten,  rendered  "  wet- 
ted "  by  Dr.  Conant  and  Elder  Wilkes  (Louisville  Debate, 
p.  619).  It  is  used  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  a.d.  190, 
and   Theophylact   as   defining  baptidzo    as  to    mode.     It 

*  Pluvid  rigaius,  depluit,  pluviam  demisit.  Arabic,  Jluii,  perfudit, 
perfusus,  jiuit,  etc. 

t  Lavando  urgeni  et  mundando  (Castell,  2043).  Other  words  in  He- 
brew, etc.  of  affusion  meaning  to  wash,  cleanse,  etc.  will  be  given  in 
abundance  soon. 

X  Benetzen,  anfeuchten.  Latin,  pliio  v.  fiuo.  Passow,  Eost,  Palm, 
Pape. 

?  Galen,  Stephanu",  Hippocrates. 


PHILOLOGY.  175 

means  to  wash.  It  is  compounded  of  hugros,  liquid,  water, 
same  as  huddr,  water,  and  raino,  to  sprinkle.  Here  the 
word  raino,  the  root  of  rantidzo,  to  sprinkle,  comes  to 
apply  to  washing,  as  well  as  other  words  of  like  primary 
force. 

The  Hebrew  word  wash  (rachats,  loiio,  nipto,  etc.  in 
Greek)  primarily  means  ^4o  bubble  up,  to  flow,  pour  out, 
to  drip."  It  is  translated  pour  [cheo)  in  the  Septuagint 
also.  For  more  details  on  wash  we  refer  to  a  future  chap- 
ter in  this  work  on  Wash.  See  the  index.  We  see  that 
wash  is  not  derivable  from  immerse;  it  is  from  sprinkle 
and  pour. 


176  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Philology,  or  Science  of  Language. 

Having  shown  now  beyond  question  that  immerse  is 
not  the  primary  of  wash,  or  purify,  or  cleanse — that  wash 
does  not  and  can  not  philologically  be  derived  from  im- 
merse, and  that  it  is  derived  constantly  from  words  that 
both  primarily  and  constantly  mean  to  sprinkle,  to  pour, 
and  to  wet  or  moisten  simply,  where  words  are  used 
mostly  applicable  to  water  (kludzo,  hugros,  hudor  with 
raino,  sprinkle) — we  proceed  to  show  a  number  of  words 
that  primarily  mean  to  sprinkle,  in  some  cases;  to  pour  in 
others;  to  moisten,  wet,  in  others,  where  it  is  by  affusion, 
that  derivatively  come  to  mean  to  dip,  to  overflow,  over- 
whelm, drown,  immerse,  showing  that  immerse  is  j)hilolog- 
ically  derived  from  affusion,  affusion  never  from  immerse. 

Immersionists  are  settled  in  nothing  more  securely  to 
their  own  satisfaction  than  in  this:  If  a  word  means  to 
s})rinkle  or  pour  it  never  can  mean,  or  come  to  mean,  to 
immerse  or  dip.  Hence  as  pedobaptists  acknowledge  that 
baptidzo  in  classic  Greek  often  naeans  to  immerse  as  well 
as  to  whelm,  etc.,  why,  it  can  never  include  any  other 
mode  or  action  than  immerse. 

1.  Dr.  Fraser  (Baptism,  p.  70):  "It  must  remain  an 
impossibility  to  reconcile  such  opposite  modes  of  applica- 
tion as  dipping  and  sprinkling." 

2.  Prof  Wilson  speaks  of  "The  absurdity  of  attach- 
ing opposite  meanings  to  the  same  term."     "The  false 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE    OF    LAXGT:AGE.  1(7 

principle  that  the  verb  denotes  the   two  distinct  acts  of 
sprinkling  and  bathing  ^^  (184,  185). 

3.  R.  Ingham  (Hand-book  on  Chris.  Baptism,  Lon- 
don, 1865,  pp.  184,  185):  "We  deny  not  that  a  copions 
sprinkling  may  approximate  to  pouring;  yea,  that  a 
sprinkling  might  be  so  abundant  that  one  person  would 
call  it  pouring  and  another  would  call  it  sprinkling. 
Nor  do  we  deny  that  in  any  language  there  is  a  word 
which  may  not  sometimes  be  used  in  the  sense  of  pour- 
ing and  sometimes  in  the  sense  of  sprinkling.  Our  belief 
is  that  in  no  cultivated  language  under  heaven  does  one 
word  mean  definitely  to  immerse  and  also  to  pour  and  to 
sprinkle.  .  .  .  Between  immersion  and  either  of  the  other 
two  there  is  an  impassable  gulf.  .  .  .  The  explicit  testi- 
mony of  lexicons  that  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  we 
regard  as  evidence  that  it  does  not  signify  to  pour  or  to 
sprinkle.  .  .  .  We  hesitate  not  to  appeal  to  any  man  to 
find  a  word  which  definitely  signifies  to  immerse  in  the 
English,  or  Latin,  or  Greek,  or  Hebrew  language,  and 
Avhicli  also  signifies  to  pour  and  to  sprinkle.  We  might 
now  leave  this  subject,"  etc.  (109). 

Dr.  Fuller:  "If  it  means  to  immerse  then  it  does  not 
mean  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour.''  "Indeed  if  it  means  im- 
merse it  can  not  mean  to  sprinkle  or  pour"  (pp.  15,  25). 

4.  Hinton  and  Pres't  Shannon :  "  Now  if  baptism  does 
indeed  mean  immerse,  as  all  admit,  it  must  (to  say  the 
very  least)  be  doubtful  whether  it  can  also  mean  to 
sprinkle  or  to  pour.  Immerse,  sprinkle,  and  pour  are 
three  distinct  ideas,  expressed  by  difierent  words  in  all 
languages"  (H.  quoting  S.,  p.  44). 

5.  Dr.  Carson  (Baptism,  p.  52) :  "  But  if  the  word 
originally  signifies  to  pour  or  to  sprinkle,  no  process  can 
be  supposed  by  which  it  would  come  to  denote  to  dye. 

12 


ITS  BAPTISM. 

.  .  .  .  The  two  meanings  can  have  no  consanguinity.'^ 
"  7.  I  will  state  another  canon  equally  self-evident,  and 
equally  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Ewing  and  all  our 
opponents.  A  word  that  applies  to  two  modes  can  desig- 
nate neither.  .  .  .  Without  reference,  then,  to  the  practice 
of  the  language,  on  the  authority  of  self-evident  truth,  I 
assert  that  hapto  can  not  signify  both  to  dip  and  pour  or 
sprinkle.  I  assert  that  in  no  language  under  heaven 
can  one  word  designate  two  modes.  Now%  we  have  the 
confession  of  our  opponents  themselves  that  baptizo  sig- 
nifies to  dip.  If  so,  it  can  not  also  signify  to  pour  or 
sprinkle''  (p.  90). 

6.  A.  Campbell  (Chris.  Baptism,  pp.  147-149);  "The 
force  of  this  argument  recognizes  only  a  concession  which 
no  man  can  refuse,  namely,  that  baptizo  once  signifies  to 
dip  or  immerse.  This  point  conceded,  and,  according  to 
tlie  law  in  such  cases,  it  must  always  signify  to  dip."  "If, 
then,  bciptizo  once  means  to  dip,  it  never  can  mean  sprin- 
kle, pour,  or  purify,  unless  these  actions  are  identically 
the  same.'' 

Yet  Carson  admits  bapto  is  applied  to  sprinklings. 

CAN    A    WORD    MEAN   TO    DIP   AND    TO    SPRINKLE? 

To  strengthen  this  they  quote  Leviticus  xiv,  6-8,  15, 
16,  where  the  priest  pours  (yatsak)  [/Jo>,  cheo],  dips  {taval) 
bapto  J  and  sprinJdes  \_nazahy  pahoj^  rainol,  the  blood.  Now, 
says  the  immersionist,  this  shows  "  a  clear  distinction  made 
in  English  and  Greek  betwixt  dipping,  pouring,  and 
sprinkling."  Ingham,  p.  109;  see  Louisville  Debate  also, 
p.  540;  Mell,  pp.  10,  11.  This  is  regarded  as  a  Gibralter 
of  immersion  power.  Let  us  see  how  readily  it  crumbles 
before  the  batteries  of  truth. 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE    OF    LANGUAGE.  179 

1.  If  these  be  the  invariable  words  for  these  specific 
actions  it  utterly  anniliilates  our  opponents  and  leaves  us 
untouched ;  for  the  word  dip  in  the  corresponding  Greek 
is  not  baptklzo  but  bapto,  which  is  only  the  root  of  the 
word,  and  they  say  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ordi- 
nance. 

2.  It  is  only  a  partial  dip  and  does  not  imply  submer- 
gence.    They  demand  a  complete  covering  of  the  subject. 

3.  As  dip  occurs  fifteen  times  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  several  times  in  the  Xew,  why  is  60^3^0  used  every 
time  in  the  Greek  where  any  dip  occurs  in  reality  in  the 
original?  for  all  ancient  versions  render  2  Kings  v,  14,  by 
wash,  not  by  dip,  i.  e.  too,  secho,  waschen,  etc. 

4.  Neither  dip,  immerse,  sprinkle,  nor  pour  as  mere 
actions  can  represent  baptidzo  in  the  religious  sense  it  has 
in  the  Bible.  In  the  above  passages  the  dip  and  pour  are 
mere  subordinate  actions,  not  words  of  ordinance.  Puri- 
fication was  the  ordinance ;  these  actions  were  to  aid  in 
accomplishing  it;  hence  mere  words  of  action  alone. 

5.  Only  one  of  these  words  is  here  meant  to  be  modal, 
that  is  the  word  sprinkle,  nor  is  it  necessarily  so.  The 
mode  was  not  involved  in  the  pour  and  dip.  The  one 
was  to  put  the  element  in  the  left  hand — the  log  of  oil. 
The  bird,  only  in  part  (see  Jamieson,  in  loc),  cedar,  hys- 
sop, and  scarlet  wool  were  to  be  baptized  with  (taval)  the 
blood  of  the  slain  bird,  and  mode  was  not  involved,  and 
its  head  and  wings  were  not  even  wet  with  the  element, 
though  the  bird  was  baptized. 

6.  The  word  yatsak  (V^!).)  pour,  is  translated  sprinkle 
repeatedly  in  the  various  Greek,  Latin,  and  English  ver- 
sions, while  the  word  nazah,  sprinkle,  is  rendered  wet, 
moisten,  overflow  .  .  by  the  highest  authorities. 

7.  Yet,  our  opponents  assume  that  each  of  these  words 


ISO  BAPTISM. 

has  a  single,  definite,  specifically-settled  meaning  in  the 
Bible,  never  departing  therefrom,  albeit  they  demand  nazah, 
sprinkle,  shall  be  held  to  mean  "  astonish,''^  in  Isaiah  Hi,  15, 
^'So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  not  allowing  it  to 
refer  to  the  commission,  ''baptize*'  all  nations.  They  say 
clieo  being  used  in  Greek  for  pour,  raino  for  sprinkle, 
hapto  for  dip  [Hebrew  yatsak,  nazah,  tahal],  these  words 
can  mean  nothing  else,  because  here  set  in  such  contrast. 
Yet  when  Christ  poured  water  in  a  basin,  and  on  various 
occasions  when  pour  occurs,  not  only  did  he  use  a  differ- 
ent word  (hallo)  altogether,  but  when  the  people  were 
sprinkled  that  word  for  pour  is  often  used.  Nay,  the 
Greek  has  thirteen  different  words  meaning  to  sprinkle, 
and  several  more  being  quite  equivalent,  as  tengo  (r^^^w), 
a  number  for  pour,  while  the  Hebrew  has  between  seven- 
teen and  twenty  for  pour,  eighteen  for  sprinkle.  See  the 
list  of  some  of  them  at  the  end  of  the  chapter  on  Wash. 
To  fasten  on  one  of  each  of  these  as  if  it  alone  was  and 
could  be  used  to  express  the  idea  demanded,  and  deduce 
thence  a  fundamental  law  in  philology,  is  the  extremity  of 
weakness. 

Let  us  now  put  these  canons  or  laws,  so  implicitly  relied 
on  as  the  pillars  of  the  immersion  theory,  to  an  actual 
test  on  w^ords,  many  of  which  are  not  related  to  this  ques- 
tion, and  see  whether  or  not  the  same  word  may  not  mean 
to  sprinkle  and  to  dip,  to  pour  and  to  overwhelm,  to  sprin- 
kle, to  pour,  and  to  immerse.  AVe  will  test  it  in  every 
language  that  entered  into  the  original  composition  and 
earliest  and  best  versions  of  the  Bible. 

1.  [^'P^,  naha  or  naga'].  The  primary  force  given  by 
Fiirst,  Gesenius,  Schindler,  and  Castell  is  to  rend  witii 
violence,  break  off,  be  violent.  In  Arabic  it  means,  *'to 
sprinkle,  to  soften  (by  application  of  water),  to  moisten. 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE   OF    LANGUAGE.  181 

to  make  wet,  to  wash,  to  dip,  to  penetrate.  Schindler.* 
In  ^thiopic  the  root  is  traced  clearly  to  effervesce,  bubble 
or  sparkle  up  of  water,  break  off,t  gush  forth,  applied  to 
a  fountain  of  water  breaking  forth.  See  Psalms  xxxv,  10; 
Ixxvii,  49.  So  in  Arabic  it  means  'Ho  pour  together, 
flow-over,  soften,  saturate."  But  not  only  does  Schindler 
make  it  mean  to  dip,  penetrate  into,  but  Castell  also,  "to 
be  immersed  in  water,  ....  collection  of  saliva  in  the 
mouth,  to  immerse  oneself  in  water,  descend,  be  im- 
mersed." X 

2.  [*T^*^  shataph].  Gesenius  defines  this  word  *''to 
gush  or  pour  forth,  to  flow  abundantly;  (2)  overflow. 
The  rain  pouring  out."§  Fiirst  gives  the  primary  mean- 
ing  "drop,"  "let  fall,"  noun-form — "an  outpouring,  rain- 
gust."  Yet  Schindler  gives  it  also  plunge,  overflow, 
overwhelm.  Buxtorf  gives  it  the  derived  force  of  "im- 
merse." Castell  gives  it  overflow,  overwhelm,  immerse. 
iEthiopic,  to  plunge,  submerse,  ^f  Primarily  it  means  to 
drop,  of  rain.  Then  in  Leviticus  it  always  means  wash. 
Later,  in  1  Kings  xxii,  38,  it  is  to  wash,  where  it  is  by 
affusion.  Later,  in  Ezekiel  xxxviii,  22,  it  is  a  pouring 
rain.  Later  still  it  came  to  mean  overflow,  overwhelm, 
from  its  application  to  pouring  rains.  It  never  means 
immerse  in  the  earlier  books  of  the  Bible  —  never  in 
the  Prophets  or  Psalms.  In  the  latest  Hebrew  writings 
it  nearly  always  applies   to   overflowing,  overwhelming. 

•••  Infudit,  maceravit,  humectavit,  madefecit,  lavit,  intinit,  inirivit 

t  Hiscere,  dehiscere,  scindi,  scaturire,  ebullire,  de  aqua  .  .  .  fons  vitce. 

t  Castell :  Immersus  fuit  aquae,  .  .  .  collectio  salivce  in  ore,  .  .  .  im- 
mergere  se  aquae,  .  .  .  descendit,  imynersum  materioe  peniius  (2405-6). 

lEffudit,  largiter,  pluvit,  2  inundavit  —  w.  efusio,  etc.  (Thesaurus 
Heb.  Lin.) 

^Castell :  Svpra — exundavU,  inundavit,  immersit.  ^thiop.,  Mersus, 
submersus  est,  suhmersif,  demersit  (p.  3737).  'Tti'i^Ms  rendered  in  LXX, 
by  fi;?i'!f(y,  km,  and  KaraK^l'^o),  vIttto)^  cnrovirrrt^K  ttavvu),  KcraTrcvri'^ij),  etc. 


182  BAPTISM. 

Later  still  the  Hebrews  used  it  for  immerse,  and  in  the 
third  century  after  Christ  it  came  to  apply  often  to  im- 
mersion. Here  is  not  only  a  full  refutation  of  the  immer- 
sion canon,  but  a  great  i^ey  to  this  controversy.  But  let 
us  multiply  proofs. 

3.  We  have  seen  that  hapto,  the  root  of  baptldzo,  means 
to  stain,  color,  applied  to  birds,  to  stones,  etc.  So  zarak,^ 
to  sprinkle,  besprinkle,  pour  out,  in  Hebrew,  Chaldee, 
and  Syriac;  in  the  latter  means  also  to  color,  "to  color 
blue,''  "golden,''  and  "various  colors,"  while  in  Arabic, 
from  this  meaning,  it  applies  to  variously-colored  birds, 
wet. 

4.  Nuphj  noph,-\  to  sprinkle,  be  sprinkled,  pour  out, 
shed  drops,  agitate,  etc.  Arabic  means  the  same ;  to  move, 
agitate,  hurl,  throw.  Kindred  roots,  e.  g.  nug,  agitate, 
commotion ;  nuts  (same  root),  to  agitate,  move,  to  moisten, 
motion  of  water,  then,  washing,  cleansing  with  water  or 
any  liquid. J 

5.  Naphuts,  to  sprinkle,  in  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  and 
Arabic,  and  in  the  latter  to  pour  means  "  to  cleanse  thor- 
oughly." 

6.  Zarak,  often  applied  to  rain,  means  also  to  make  wet, 
to  cast  down,  thrust  down;  then  to  rush  forth,  to  press, 
oppress;  the  very  meanings  that  often  lead  to  immerse, 
submerse;  next  it  means  "to  overwhelm." §     Hence — 

7.  Dachas,^,  to  press,  oppress,  impress,  immersed, 
immersion. 

^"^  Zarak,  sparsit,  aspersii,  conspersit  .  .  .  infudU,  coerulareus,  spar- 
sus,  sparsio,  effusio, — color  cceruleiis,  acribus,  etc.,  madefactxis  (Castell). 

t  Nuph,  noph. 

X  Lotio,  ablutio,  sine  aqua  sine  alia  re  liquida  (Castell). 

§  Rejecit,  projecei,  dejecit  —  noun  form — pliivia  temj)esHvia,  2^luvia 
.  .  .  ohrutus  est  (Castell). 

\  Dachas,  pressU,  chal,  compressit,  hnijressU,  .  .  .  oppressio,  .  .  . 
immersus,  .  .  .  immersio  (Castell). 


PHILOLOGY,  OPw   SCIEXCE    OF    LANGUAGE.  183 

8.  Makir,  to  rain,  wet  with  rain,  sprinkle,  is  translated 
by  the  LXX  nipto,  to  wash ;  and  in  Arabic  it  is  to  rain, 
to  sprinkle,  pour,  then  washing,  cleansing/'" 

9.  Nataph,  to  shed  drops,  drop  [as  of  rain] ;  ^thiopic, 
to  cleanse ;  Arabic,  shed  drops  [as  of  rain],  sprinkle,  pour 
out,  to  rain,  to  cleanse  oneself,  to  purify.f 

10.  Natcd,  Arabic,  the  same  (natala),  to  press  out,  be- 
sprinkle the  head  with  rain,  pour  water,  etc.,  .  .  pouring 
out,  wet,  bedewed,  .  .  .  irrigated;  in  Chaldee,  to  wash, 
cleanse,  especially  the  hands.  .  .  .  for  it  is  necessary  that 
the  water  be  poured  upon  the  hands  before  eating.^: 

11.  Zakhak,  or  zaquak,  in  Hebrew  means  to  pour,  shed 
down,  moisture,  purify,  make  pure,  shed  forth,  cleanse, 
and  the  same  in  Chaldee. 

First,  in  all  these  words  we  see  the  connection  between 
sprinkle  and  pour  on  the  one  hand,  and  Avash,  cleanse, 
purify  or  the  other;  second,  every  lexicon  gives  wash, 
cleanse,  as  the  prevailing  meaning  of  baptidzo  in  the  New 
Testament,  many  confine  themselves  to  those  two  mean- 
ings; third,  we  fail  to  find  any  connection  between  im- 
merse, even  when  "in  water,"  and  wash,  cleanse,  purify; 
fourth,  the  Arabic  words  for  immerse,  four  or  five  of 
which  mean  immerse  and  have  no  other  modal  meaning, 
never'  mean,  as  baptidzo  does,  to  wash,  cleanse,  nor  as  it 
does  in  the  classics  often,  whelm,  overwhelm,  overflow, 
intoxicate. 

12.  Nazah  is  the  Hebrew  word  that  most  commonly 

*  Matar  pluvia  rigaiiis,  depluii,  pluviam,  demissii.  Arabic,  pluit, 
perfudif,  per-fusus,  pluif,  etc.  (Castell). 

t  Hottinger,  Sehindler,  Castell,  on  nataph. 

t  Natal.  Arabic,  natala,  expressit,  impluvio  perfudit  caput,  fudit 
aquam,  effusio.  Chaldee,  lavit,  abltdt,  pec.  mamis  .  .  .  necesse  est  enim 
effundehatur  aqua  ante  prandium  super  nianus,  etc.  (Castell).  This  ig 
the  word  often  used  by  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  to  translate  r achats,  wa?^ 
(Targuui  on  Exodus). 


184  BAPTISM. 

means,  like  the  Greek  raino,  to  sprinkle.  It  is  translated 
sprinkle  in  the  Septuagint  every  time  it  occurs,  save  once, 
and  always  in  the  Vulgate.  Yet  Schindler  renders  it 
not  merely  to  sprinkle  but  to  press  out,  bedew,  make 
wet,  to  flow,  overflow,  distill.  Fiirst  renders  it  moisten, 
Avater,  besprinkle,  imbue,  etc.  In  Arabic  it  means  to 
sprinkle  with  water,  pour  out,  make  wet.  In  ^thiopic, 
to  make  clean,  purify,  cleanse.  It  applies  to  "the  water 
of  purification''  (Num.  viii,  7),  then  "to  thrust  down,  to 
submerse."  * 

These  words  cover  all  that  baptidzo  means  save  to 
intoxicate,  and  we  will  find  words  that  primarily  mean  to 
sprinkle,  to  moisten,  that  cover  that  meaning  amply, 
though  wholly  unnecessary. 

13.  Ruh  [as  if  ruhe],  in  Chaldee  and  Arabic,  to  expel, 
throw  out,  spew  out,  to  pour  out,  poured  out,  pour  down 
rain,  a  shower.  The  same  root  in  Arabic  {ruga),  "spew 
out,  to  strike,  sprinkle,  to  immerse.'' f 

14.  Kechalj  a  Semitic  word  for  stain,  paint,  Schaaf  ren- 
ders paint,  stain,  dip,  sprinkle.  % 

15.  Natmcha,  Arabic,  to  pour  out,  sprinkle  with  water, 
besprinkle  with  water,  copious  rain,  sprinkling  (Num. 
xix,  9,  13,  20;  1  Pet.  12),  sprinkled,  yet  to  make  wet,  to 
wash  the  members  [i.  e.  of  the  body,  limbs].  § 

16.  Ilattatha,  Arabic,  expansion,  ...  to  moisten  with 

^^  Nazah,  sparsit  aquam  vel  songuinem,  aspersit,  expressU,  rogavit, 
humectavit,  .  .  .  asperus  fini,  deffluxii,  inundavit,  silivat.  Arabic,  na^ 
izad,  sparsit,  aqua  consperit,  effudit,  rigavit  .  .  .  (Num.  xix,  9,  13,  20, 
etc.).  JEthiopic,  nazad,  mtindus,  purus  fait  m^mdavit ;  aqua  purijica- 
iionisy  purgavit,  dejecit,  submersit.     Castell,  Schindler. 

t  Ruga,  spiima,  percussit,  aspersit,  immersH,  etc.  (Castell).  Ruts,  same 
root,  sprinkle  water,  aquatn  infudit. 

X  Kechal,  .  .  .  intinxit,  asperglt  (Syriac  Lex,  N.  T.). 

^Natsacha  in  Arabic — effudit,  etc.,  sparsus  fuit^  .  .  .  rigatus  fuit 
.  .  .  abluit  Tvemhra. 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE   OF    LANGUAGE.  185 

ointment  or  paint,  wet  with  water,  to  sprinkle  oneself  co- 
piously with  ointment,  to  immerse  oneself  in  water,  mix- 
ing, immersion,  commotion,  confusion,  or  agitation.  * 

17.  Lathav,  to  wet  with  tears,  to  be  given  to  tears,  to 
stain  a  garment,  as  with  sweat,  dew,  immersion  ...  in 
water  or  blood.  It  applies  to  drops  of  gum  oozing  out  of 
trees,  moisture,  bedew,  tree-dropping  juice  or  moisture, 
make  wet.f  We  will  see  that  one  of  the  Arabic  words 
for  baptize  applies  to  juice  dropping  from  trees,  from 
juice,  etc. 

18.  Ravah,  to  moisten,  make  drunk,  irrigate.  In  these 
senses  this  Hebrew  word  occurs  many  times;  e.  g.  Isaiah 
xvi,  9,  ^^I  will  water  thee  with  my  tears.''  On  drunken- 
ness as  a  meaning  see  1  Samuel  xxv,  36,  "  Very  drunken ;" 
1  Kings  xvi,  9,  "Drinking  himself  drunk"  (xx,  16;  Jer. 
xlviii,  26;  John  ii,  10,  Arabic).  It  means  irrigation  (Is. 
Iviii,  11).  It  applies  in  Arabic  to  the  "agitation  of  the 
earth,  to  drink,  draw  water,  imbue  with  water,  to  irri- 
gate"— often  thus  it  occurs;  then  pouring  rain, dew, dewy.  J 
Here  a  word  applied  to  sprinklings,  pouring  rains,  dews, 
like  baptldzo,  means  to  be  drunk,  intoxicated,  and,  like 
bapto^  to  moisten,  bedew,  draw  water,  and,  like  both  wordsj 
to  imbue,  make  wet,  moisten,  pour  water,  etc. 

19.  Letash,  Chaldee,  to  sprinkle,  in  later  days  comes  tc. 
mean  "to  sprinkle  or  immerse;"  and  Buxtorf  and  Cas- 

'^Mathath,  expansio,  .  .  ,  imbuit  .  .  .  miguenio  vel  pinguedine,  .  . 
huynore  imhutus  fuit,  .  .  .  saturavit,  miscuit,  unguento  se  ahundi  perfu 
dit;  mersit  in  aguam,  .  .  .  mixteo,  mersio,  etc.  (Castell). 

"f  Lathav  ynadita  she  irrorata  fuit,  manavit  lachrymd  succo  ve  arbou 
.   .  .  didiius  lachrymal  conspurcaxnt  uti  sudore,  vestem,  demersio,  etc. 

X  Ravah  madef actus,  inebriatus,  satiolus  est  pota,  irrigus  .  .  .  Chat, 
i.  q.  Heh.  ib  ebrius  .  .  .  irrigatio.  Syr.  e.  q.  Heb.  Arab,  agitata  fuit 
aqua  per  faciam  terrce;  confurbatio  aquce  supra  terram  .  .  .  hausil 
aquam,  potavit,  ,  .  .  imbuit  himior^e,  .  .  .  irregavit  .  .  .  imbrem  fundens, 
.  .  .  efin6m,  .  .  .  r«.§,  roridntus  (Caivtell,  35,  42-33. 


186  BAPTISM. 

tell  show  that  the  word  that   means  to   make  white,   to 
glitter,  means  to  wash,  to  cleanse.* 

20.  Arabic  garakaf  primarily  applies  to  bedewing, 
dropping  water,  distilling  rain,  rain,  dilute  gently  with 
water,  rain  wetting  herbs,  comes  to  apply  to  a  garment 
dyed,  like  bapto,  to  objects  ^^  submersed  in  the  sea,"  ^Ho 
be  submersed,"  "to  immerse,"  "immersed  in  water,"  as 
well  as  "simply  to  pour  water  upon  the  head"  as  well  as 
irrigate.  Schindler^s  lexicon  (folio)  defines  it  to  perspire, 
sweat,  decorate,  color,  pour  (fuclit),  and  yet  gives  it  the 
meaning  of  immerse,  demerse,  twenty  times.  Does  this 
look  as  if  the  same  word  could  not  mean  in  some  places  to 
sprinkle,  in  others  to  pour,  to  pour  water  upon  objects,  on 
the  head,  and  to  immerse? 

21.  ChamatSj  chamutSj  means,  Gesenius,  Castell,  etc. 
tell  us,  to  be  sharp,  acid,  violent,  to  ferment.  Hence  to 
scatter  in  drops,  to  sprinkle.  Hence  Buxtorf,  "To  be 
sprinkled,  stained,  infected,  made  wet.";}:  Schindler,  "To 
sprinkle  with  water,"  etc.  Yet  it  comes  to  mean  "to  stain, 
to  dip,  to  immerse." §  It  is  applied  to  water  thus,  "They 
dipped  them  in  the  water."  ^     It  meant  to  oppress  also. 

22.  Gamas,  in  Arabic,  Schindler  renders  "dipped,  im- 
mersed," as  well  as  "sprinkled." 

23.  Tomash  is  applied  to  wetting  objects  with  tears  (Ps. 

*Chal.  letash,  sparsit,  aspersit  {p.  1918).     In  later  Talmudic  days, 
"as})ergat  vet  immergat"  (Lex.  Tal.  et  Kab.  J.  Buxtorf,  1140).     Chava. 
white,  etc. 

'\Arak.  Arabic,  garaka,  .  .  .  leviier,  aqua  diluit,  .  .  .  gutta,  aqtice, 
pluvia  valida,  .  .  ,  imbris  guttcp,  imher  herbes  inadefaciens,  herba  pin- 
guefaciens  mublieres,  .  .  gutta  aqiice,  etc.  Curcuma  tincta  vestis,  .  .  . 
in  mare  submersce,  mersum  in  corpore,  submersus,  .  .  .  immersio,  .  .  . 
capitl  semel  affudit  aquam.     Castell  and  Preytag. 

X  Conspersits,  tinctus  vel  infectus,  madefactns,  etc. 

§  Tlngere^  intingere,  imynergere  (Castell). 

\  Jntingunt  eos  in  aquam,  as  well  as  aqua  perfudit  (Schindler). 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE   OF   LANGUAGE.  187 

vi^  7 — 6  in  Hebrew),  to  staining  a  mountain  with  human 
blood  (Is.  xxxiv,  3),  yet  is  rendered  ''merse,  moisten,  dip, 
wash,"  etc. 

24.  Persic,  phamv,^  "  poured,  pour  out  water,  .  .  .  de- 
scend, go  down  and  into  the  water,  to  immerse  oneself,  to 
flow  down."     Often  ^Ho  depress,  swallow,  penetrate." 

25.  Shahal  has  the  same  root  in  Hebrew  that  tabhaly 
baptize,  has — bal — and  means  primarily  to  pour,  to  rain, 
to  flow.  It  is  the  same  in  Arabic,  and  means  also  "to 
overflow,  overwhelm,"  as  haptldzo  in  the  classics. 

26.  Shapha  is  kindred  with  tsevha,  baptize,  in  Arabic 
and  Syriac,  'Ho  flow  down,  to  pour  out,  sprinkle,  pour 
forth,  ...  to  depress  or  sink,  to  overwhelm."  f 

27.  Tsuph,  'Uo  pour  upon,  to  moisten,"  ''to  overflow," 
"to  inundate,"  "to  overwhelm":!;  are  meanings. 

28.  Ratabj  "to  bedew,  to  wet,  moistened,  sprinkled, 
irrigated,  dipped."  § 

29.  Nataph  [root  tab,  as  above  in  notab'],  to  drop,  flow 
in  drops,  flow  down,  distill,  fall  in  drops,  to  cause  to  over- 
flow. |1 

30.  PhutSy  sprinkled,  dispersed  (after),  poured,  pour 
out,  scattered  abroad,  flow  down,  flow  out,  overflow^,  over- 
whelm, poured  out,  etc.^ 

*■  lis,  fundus,  aquam  effundere,  .  .  .  descendere,  accidere  et  in  aquam 
.  .  .  se  immergere,  defluere,  etc. 

-\AfflaxH,  defluxit,  .  .  .  efudii,  declinavit,  descendit,  depressit  (Schind- 
ler).    Eff adit,  prof udit — inundavit,  profudit  (Castell). 

t  '11i^  tsuph,  supereffundo.  Trommius,  manure,  fluere,  irrigare,  hi" 
undere,  .  .  .  superindei,  etc.  (Fiirst  and  Castell). 

I  ^"^^J,  niaduit,  humidus,  humectatus,  perfusus,  irrigatus,  intingiintur 
(Schindler). 

II  Guttavit,  etc.     Stellavit,  .  .   .  inundavit  (Schindler). 

^  Y*5»  phuts,  sparsiis,  disperses  (repeated,  etc.)  fusus,  effusus,  diffusub 
fuit,  dejluit,  effluxit,  inundavit,  exundavit,  .  .  .  effundatur,  .  .  .  iniinda^. 
runt  torrentes  rivi,  et  Nilus,  etc.  (Schindler). 


188  BAPTISM. 

31.  Chalal,  in  Arabic/' to  moisten,  ...  to  pour/'  yet 
in  Chaldee  it  is  to  wash,  cleanse,  applied  to  the  washings 
of  Leviticus,  e.  g.  chapter  xvi. 

32.  Baradj  to  sprinkle  hail,  to  hail,  ^thiopic  is  the 
same.  In  Arabic,  to  pour  forth  water,  wash  with  cold 
water,  to  wash  oneself  with  cold  water;  then  it  is  applied 
to  coloring  various  colors  of  garments,  etc. 

33.  MotZj  ^'primarily,  to  pour  out''  is  "to  wash,"  ap- 
plied to  washing  out  the  mouth,  "  moist,  damp,"  yet  ap- 
plied to  'Svash  oneself  with  a  sacred  washing."* 

34.  Nasak,  to  pour,  pour  out.  Syriac,  pour  out,  Ara- 
bic, wash  with  water  and  purify,  .  .  .  wet  with  rain,  of 
the  earth. 

35.  Arabic  gasa  is  to  rain,  make  wet  with  rain,  pour 
out,  yet  applies  to  painting,  coloring,  etc.f 

36.  Badar,  Hebrew,  to  scatter.  Syriac,  to  sprinkle, 
scatter.  Arabic  badara  is  the  same,  to  sow,  sprinkle,  scat- 
ter, yet  it  comes  to  mean  "to  impart  a  yellow  color,"  and 
just  like  bapto,  applies  to  coloring  and  adorning  the  eyes; 
then,  like  baptidzo,  in  the  classics,  "to  sprinkle  with 
words,"  a  talkative  man ;  then  to  "  cause  to  enter,"  re- 
peated often;  then  it  comes  to  mean  "to  submerse." J 

37.  Nazal,  "  to  sprinkle,  dip,  or  distill  water,  rain  ;  then 
to  depress,  or  press  down,  descend,  let  fall ;  compress  in 
Arabic.     Here  is  the  idea  of  immersion. 

38.  Shakah  in  Semitic  languages  is  "to  water,  drink, 
irrigate,  moisten,  water,"  yet  "to  paint,"  to  "impart  bright 
golden  or  red  colors,"  imbue,  just  as  bapto. 

39.  Words  meaning  to  press,  impress,  compress  come  to 

*  Prim,  infusa,  etc.  .  ,  .  lavit  .  .  .  ablutio  .  .  .  lavit  se  sacra  loiione. 

t  Co77ipluit,  rigavit  ierram  jduvid,  .  .  .  effums,  etc. — ;;?Ziana  rigatus, 
.  .  .  pinguescit,  pinguendo  (Castell,  2750). 

X  Badar^  sernnavit,  sparsit,  dispersit,  .  .  .  verbum  sparser,  .  .  .  pen- 
etrare  fecit  .  .  .  szi^bmersii  ( Castell) . 


PHILOLOGY,  OR  SCIENCE    OF    LANGUAGE.  189 

mean  immerse  very  naturally  and  constantly.  Yet  the 
same  force  of  the  word  causes  it  to  mean  sprinkle  often. 
Pressing  an  object  may  sink,  immerse  it.  Pressing  an  ob- 
ject may  cause  juice  to  stream  out  of  it,  sap,  moisture.  A 
grape,  many  objects  pressed,  causes  the  juice  to  be  sprin- 
kled. In  cases  where  there  are  many  as  in  a  wine-vat,  or 
a  large  object  full  of  moisture,  it  pours.  Hence  Arabic 
atsara  means  "to  press,  compress."*  Next  it  comes  to 
mean  "shed  drops,  distill,'^  applied  to  water;  then  to 
•^^ enter  into^f  being  pressed  "to  flee,'^  from  being  op- 
pressed; "rain"  (pluvia),  "juice"  {succus) ;  often  it  means 
juice,  sap,  "oil"  pressed  out,  "clouds  forcing  out  rain," 
"  hail,  snow,  cold  water "  forced  or  thrust  down,  "  sprin- 
kled with  water,"  or  dew,J  "immersed  in  water." §  In 
the  above  order  all  these  with  other  kindred  meanings 
belong  to  this  one  word,  and  it  occurs  in  each  of  these 
senses. 

Let  us  test  the  Latin  language  on  these  principles  of 
philology. 

40.  Conspergo,  to  sprinkle,  is  not  only  applied  by  Ovid 
and  the  Latins  to  staining,  polluting;  but  White's  late 
Latin  lexicon  gives  "to  cover"  as  a  meaning,  while  as- 
pergo,  to  sprinkle,  means  "to  defile,  spot,  stain,  fill,"  and 
the  root  spargo,  to  sprinkle,  means  to  be  "spotted,  cov- 
ered, covered  over,"  alluding  to  the  colors,  etc.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  tabhal,  hapto,  tseva,  have  those  meanings, 
spotted,  colored,  as  of  birds  and  garments  thus  colored. 

41.  Tingo^  is  from  the  Greek  tengo^  "to  moisten,  to 

^  Pressii,  eompressii  (Schindler),   Pressit  (Castell), 
i  Ligressus  fiiit  (Castell). 
X  Rore  perfusum  (Castell). 
^  In  aqua  iynrnergiiur  (Castell). 

^  Tingo^  Greek  rtvyu  [ienggo  or  tengo"],  to  moisten.  As  this  word 
figures  extensively  in  some  parts,  we  refer  to  another  place  for  a  full 


190  BAPTISM. 

make  wet/'  where  it  is  by  tears,  dew,  rain,  all  cases  of 
sprinkling,  shedding  forth,  etc.  Yet  it  comes  to  mean  to 
wash,  where  it  is  by  affusion,  to  stain,  color,  dye  by  any 
mode  or  process,  then  to  dip,  to  plunge. 

42.  Madeo,  to  be  wet,  bedew,  besprinkle,  is  thus  de- 
fined by  Bullions's  Latin  Lexicon,  1869,  ^'  Madeo,  to  be 
wet,  to  be  moist,  dripping  wet,  .  .  .  intoxicated,  .  .  . 
sweat,  perspire;  madidus,  wet,  moist,  metaphorically,  full 
of  water,  soft,  ....  intoxicated,  ...  a  drunkard;  8. 
soaked,  dipped,  dyed."  How  like  bapto  and  in  part  bap- 
tldzo  f 

The  Greek  language  follows  the  same  laws. 

43.  Pluno,^^  primarily  to  rain,  flow  (of  water),  to 
moisten,  sprinkle,  pour,  in  early  use.  In  Aristophanes  it 
came  like  baptidzo  to  mean  "  to  abuse,  revile,  reproach" — 
i.  e.  besprinkle  with  abuse,  pour  torrents  of  abuse  on  one, 
Plunos  was  a  lover.  See  Pickering's  Lexicon.  In  De- 
mosthenes pluno  meant  to  abuse.  It  meant  to  wash,  to 
cleanse,  and  that  became  its  general  meaning  in  Greek. 

44.  Raino,  to  sprinkle,  is  defined  by  Pickering  "to 
sprinkle;  passive,  to  be  submerged." 

45.  Diugraino,  sprinkle  with  water,  wet.  Groves  de- 
fines also  by  "wash,"  by  "soak,  overwhelm." 

46.  Katantleo.^  Dunbar  defines  it  "to  pour  upon,  to 
bathe  with  water,  ...  to  soothe  with  eloquence,  to  over- 
discussion  of  it.  (See  on  Tingo.)  Hesychius  defines  it  by  i3pex^^C, 
araTidCetg,  irlripbiq,  shed  or  sprinkle  water,  moisten,  bedew,  trickle  down, 
as  tears.  Stephanus:  Tengo  madefacio^  humecto ;  then  Hesychius,  as 
above.  Lachrymarum  giiUis  rigare  genas — wet  the  cheeks  with  drops 
of  tears.  Pape:  Tey^w — benitzen,  anfeuchten.  Thranen  :  Vergiessen — 
moisten,  wet,  shed  tears. 

•••  Passow,  Rest,  and  Palm :  Karax^rZtw,  driiberher  gicssen  oder  schiit- 
ten,  dariiber  ausgiessen,  met.  einen  womit  iiberschutten,  iiberhaufen,  etc, 
2,  Begiessen  iibergiessen,  iiberschutten.  Galen  cited.  See  their  defini- 
tions of  baptidzo  now  in  German — same  words  in  large  part. 


PHILOLOGY,   OR   SCIENCE    OF    LANGUAGE.  191 

whelm  with  or  pour  ridicule  upon  one."  Pickering,  "to 
pour  on ;  to  pump  water  upon ;  to  shower  down  (words) 
on;  to  bathe  with  water;  to  overwhelm  with  or  pour  rid- 
icule on  one." 

47.  Cheo,  to  pour,  Pickering  defines  by  '^  cause  to 
flood,"  "  to  inter,  to  bury." 

48.  Brecho.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  "soak,"  "inun- 
date," "drench,"  "overflow,"  "intoxicate,"  "overwhelm" 
are  all  constantly-recurring  meanings  of  baptidzo  in  classic 
Greek.  All  immersionists  agree  to  so  translate  it.  Brecho 
is  a  prominent  definition  of  baptidzo  by  all  native  Greek 
lexicons  who  define  ancient  Greek.  Kouma  and  Gazes 
both  give  it  as  a  prominent  meaning,  and  the  great  Ger- 
man work  of  Schneider  gives  brecho  as  its  general  repre- 
sentative, answering  to  the  ^' benetzen^'  of  Pape,  Post, 
Palm,  and  Passow.  Passow,  Post,  and  Palm  all  define 
brecho  thus :  "  To  wet,  to  moisten,  to  besprinkle ;  thence, 
in  passive  voice,  to  be  wet,  receive  moisture,  be  wet  with 
rain,  to  rain,  to  tipple,  soaked  Avith  wine,  be  drunk,  to 
pour  upon,  to  overwhelm."^ 

Em-brecho,  same  word  intensified,  "to  soak,  to  dip  in." 

Liddell  &  Scott:  Brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle, 
rain  on,  met[aphorically],  shower  down." 

Pickering:  Brecho,  to  moisten,  wet,  water,  to  bedew, 
besprinkle,  soften,  to  rain,  showier.  Pass[ive],  to  be  wet, 
soaked.  Metaphorically,  to  be  soaked  with  liquor,  hence 
to  be  drunk  or  tipsy." 

Stephanus:  Brecho,  to  moisten,  dip,  soften,  etc.f 

Apo-brecho,  to  sprinkle,  wet,  to  dip.  J 

*  Bpe^Yw,  benetzen,  befeuchten,  besprengen,  dab.  im.  pass,  sicb  be- 
netzen,  .  .  .  ein  mit  wein  ueberfiilter,  etc.  Trukner :  Madidus,  liber- 
schutten,  iiberhaufen,  etc.     'E//6/)c;i;w — einweicben,  eintunken. 

tBp£;j;w,  madefacio,  intingo,  macero.     Item  irrigo,  item  bibo,  .  .  .  pluo. 

X  'A'TToSpexo),  iterjundo^  madefacio^  intingo^  etc. 


192  BAPTISM. 

Em-hrechoy  ^^to  soak,  to  immerse ;''  yet  it  means  "To 
besprinkle,  to  sprinkle,  likewise  to  merse/^*  Suidas, 
tenth   century,  defines  it  by  "submersion/^ f 

49.  Deuo.  Here  is  a  word  that  Hesyohius,  fourth  cen- 
tury, Suidas,  tenth,  native  Greek  lexicographers,  give  as 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  hapto.  Stephanus  quotes  where 
it  is  used  for  ba^^to.     It  is  quite  important  in  this  line. 

Pickering:  Deuo,  to  wet,  to  steep,  to  moisten,  to  soak, 
to  dye  by  immersion  or  sprinkling,  ...  to  pour  out,  to 
shed,  cause  to  flow. 

Liddell  &  Scott:  Deuo,  wet,  soak,  steep,  .  .  .  make 
to  flow,  shed,  .  .  .  our  [i.  e.  English]  dew,  bedew. 

Groves:  Deuo,  to  wet,  water,  moisten,  bedew,  sprinkle, 
to  tinge,  dye,  color,  to  soak,  soften. 

Stephanus:  Deuo,  wet,  moisten,  imbue,  stain  {tingo), 
pour,  besprinkle,  infect,  stain,  bapheus.X  He  continues: 
^'  Endeuo,  to  bedew,  moisten,  irrigate,"  as  the  equivalent 
of  embapto,  and  that  as  equivalent  of  embrecho,  above. § 

Here  these  great  authorities  place  bapto,  the  root  of 
baptidzo,  as  the  equivalent  of  words  that  mean  to  bedew, 
shed  down,  pour,  sprinkle.  They  sustain  our  laws  of 
philology  unanimously.  These  words  that  primarily  apply 
universally  to  afl'usions,  come  to  mean  to  dip,  to  dye,  to 
color,  to  stain,  to  soak,  intoxicate. 

50.  Hugrino,  Avater,  sprinkle,  means  to  wet,  moisten, 
wash. 

51.  Moluno,  primarily  to  sprinkle  (Stephanus),  means  to 
stain,  to  pollute,  to  defile. 

52.  Passow :  Ballo — embaUo,  to  cast  (or  strike),  to  be- 

"^'  'Efj.6p£xo),  iinmadefacio,  immergo  .  .  inspersa,  per/undo,  item  mergo. 
t  Submers7is,  cited  by  Stephanus. 
X  Ba(j)EV(;. 

^''EvSevu,  that  is  to  say,  e/j-daiTTO),  E/j,6pi;;(u.  Passow  gives  endcuo  as 
bammati,  i.  e.  bapto. 


PHILOLOGY,  OR   SCIENCE   OF    LANGUAGE.  193 

sprinkle  oneself,  to  pour,  pour  out,  sprinkle,  to  besprinkle 
oneself  with  bath-water/' ^^  This  word  applies  to  washing 
where  it  is  louo,  to  wash,  take  a  bath.  See  fully  under  the 
chapter  on  Wash. 

53.  Kludzo.^  The  primary  meaning  of  kludzo  is  be- 
dash, sprinkle.  The  ancient  glosses  (lexicons)  have  '^ peri- 
kludzo,  sprinkle,  perfuse."  j  Buddseus  (the  lexicographer, 
not  the  later  ecclesiastic  writer)  has  it  peri-hlusmati,  sprin- 
kled.§  Galen,  the  native  Greek  lexicographer,  born  a.d. 
130,  renders  it  by  "affusion,"  "infusion"  constantly,  and 
our  word  clyster  is  from  it.  Stephens  renders  it  in  the  same 
way.  Passow,  the  master  critic  in  Greek,  has  ^^  kludzo, 
w^ash,  splash  (or  bedash),  dabble,  bedash,  wet,  wash,  purifv 
or  cleanse,"  etc.  Stokius :  "Kludzo,  wash,  cleanse,  wasii 
(or  bedew,  sprinkle)."^  Groves  :  "Peri-kludzo,  to  wash  all 
round  or  all  over,  dash  water,  sprinkle  over."  Liddell  & 
Scott:  "To  wash,  dash,  ...  to  wash  off,  drench,  to  put 
water  into  the  ears,  and  so  cleanse  them."  So  Passow. 
A.  Campbell  quotes  from  Aristotle,  the  most  learned  Greek 
and  accurate  in  words  who  ever  wrote,  where  this  word  is 
interchanged  with  baptidzo,  both  rendered  "  overflowed," 
the  preposition  kata  being  joined  to  kludzo,  as  often  occurs, 
as  well  as  peri,  and  the  same  kata  is  often  joined  to  bap- 
tidzo in  the  classics.  ||  Here  is  a  Avord  that  primarily 
means  to  splash  or  bedash  with  water,  sprinkle,  inject 
water,  that  is  the  "equivalent  for   baptidzo.''     Yet   this 

*  Xp6a  ?MVTpdig,  sich  mit  bade-wasser  bespringen. 

t  KAii^w,  irepiKlvi^o. 

XAspergo,  perfundo.  H.  Stephens's  Thesaurus :  Subvoce. 

^Aspergine  (X,  127  Thesaurus,  H.  Stephens). 

^Eluo^  ahluo,  lavo. 

I  Chris.  Baptism,  page  130:  "Are  not  overflowed  {me  baptizesthai), 
but  at  full  tide  are  ovei-flowed  {katakluzesthai) ;  which  word  {katakliidzo) 
is  here  used  as  an  equivalent  for  baptizesthai^     Just  so  exactly,  and  in 
classic  Greek,  too,  where  they  contend  it  does  always  mean  immerse. 
18 


194  BAPTISM. 

word  comes  to  mean  not  only  to  wash^  cleanse,  infuse, 
overflow,  but  to  immerse,  submerse.  Stephanus  renders 
it  to  "imbrue,  overflow,  bury,  submerge."  Buddaeus  does 
the  same.  Stokius  renders  also  katahludzo,  to  bury,  sub- 
merge.* Could  a  fact  be  more  perfectly  demonstrated 
than  this,  that  words  primarily  applying  to  aifusion  come 
to  mean  wash,  whelm,  cover,  immerse? 

54.  Baled — bakda.  One  more  example  we  produce 
from  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic — bcdal,  which  has  the  same 
root  (bed)  as  the  Hebrew  word  for  baptize  {tabal),  and  is 
the  word  that  is  used  in  the  Arabic  Bible  to  translate 
bapto  and  embapto,  dip,  "  dip  in,"  in  Luke  xvi,  24,  "  That 
he  may  dip"  (embapto).  John  xiii,  26,  "I  shall  have  dip- 
ped." But  what  is  the  primary  meaning  of  this  word, 
and  what  other  meanings  develop  therefrom? 

(1)  Frey tag's  Arabic  lexicon  defines  it,  ^'To  moisten, 
and  especially  to  Avater  or  soften  by  sprinkling  or  lightly 
pouring  the  water."  f 

(2)  Castell, ''  To  moisten  and  especially  to  water  or  soften 
by  sprinkling  or  lightly  (gently)  pouring  the  water.  J 

(3)  Gesenius,  "  To  sprinkle,  water,  make  wet  by  affusion 
of  water,  sprinkle."  § 

(4)  Schindler :  BaJal,  to  sprinkle,  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to 

,iip.ii 

Here  is  a  word  that  primarily  and  habitually  means  to 
sprinkle  where  it  is  a  very  light  sprinkling  of  water.  Yet 
it  is  the  Avord  used  to  translate  bapto  and  embapto. 

'•■  Obruo,  submergo.     Stephanus :  Imhruo,  inundo,  obruo,  submergo. 

t  Freytag  Arab.  Lex, :  Madrficit  et  spec,  rigavit,  maceravit  ve  asperso 
aid  leviter  offuso  humore. 

tCastell:  Same,  word  for  word,  as  Freytag. 

§Gesenius's  Thesaurus:  '^Z^,  perjadit.  Arabic,  rigavit,  offuso  hu- 
more inadefecit,  conspersit,  etc, 

II  Rigiivii,  nuidf-Jicit,  intinxit. 


PHILOLOGY,   OR   SCIENCE    OF    LAXGUAGE.  195 

III  this  list  of  words,  as  in  nearly  all  other  matters,  our 
own  humble  researches  alone  brought  out  these  facts,  no 
one  ever  having  taken  up  this  matter,  so  all-important  to 
this  question.  In  this  list  of  over  fifty  words,  all  the 
words  for  baptism  in  the  Bible  and  older  versions,  such  as 
tabaly  tzeva,  and  gasala,  amad,  amaday  secho,  bapto,  and  bap- 
tidzo,  have  been  left  out  because  they  are  the  words  in 
question,  though  legitimately  they,  from  the  facts  exhib- 
ited, really  belong  to  the  list. 

The  following  facts,  then,  are  elicited  and  settled,  viz: 

1.  Wash  is  not  derived  from  dip  or  immerse. 

2.  A  great  number  of  words  in  various  languages,  pri- 
marily meaning  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  come  to  mean  to 
wash,  cleanse,  purify,  to  overflow,  overwhelm,  immerse, 
submerse. 

3.  That  immerse  is  in  almost  all  cases,  if  not  in  all,  a 
derived  meaning,  not  a  primary  one  in  any  case. 

4.  That  numbers  of  words  primarily  meaning  to  mois- 
ten, where  it  is  {''  affuso  leveter  '^j  with  dew,  drops  of  water,  a 
gentle  affusion,  sprinkling,  come  to  mean  to  wash,  cleanse, 
overflow,  overwhelm,  depress,  burden,  immerse,  submerse. 

5.  That  w^ords  primarily  meaning,  and  often  meaning, 
to  sprinkle,  moisten,  wet,  where  it  was  a  very  light  affu- 
sion of  liquid  or  water,  come  to  mean  to  stain,  to  paint, 
color,  dye,  wash,  cleanse,  intoxicate,  soak,  make  drunk, 
dip,  immerse,  submerse  —  covering  perfectly  the  classic 
meanings  of  bapto  and  baptidzo. 

6.  That  words  primarily  meaning  to  agitate  or  effer- 
vesce, from  which  often  is  derived  violence,  come  to  mean 
to  sprinkle,  from  the  violence  of  the  fermenting  or  effer- 
vescing, scattering  drops  in  all  directions,  staining  them, 
hence  to  stain,  dye,  color;  thence  dye  by  dipping,  to  dip, 
immerse. 


196  BAPTISM. 

7.  Tliat  words  meaning  to  press,  press  down,  press  in, 
press  together  (the  same  word  often  has  all  these  meanings) 
come  to  mean  to  sprinkle,  from  the  juice  or  liquid  burst- 
ing out  of  the  juicy  objects,  as  grapes,  fruit  generally,  sat- 
urated materials,  juicy  vegetables,  etc.;  to  pour,  to  color, 
to  immerse,  to  submerse,  from  being  pressed  when  resting 
on  a  yielding  substance,  as  water,  etc. 

8.  It  is  demonstrated  to  an  absolute  certainty  that  it  is 
not  merely  the  natural  law,  but  the  only  law  or  habit  of 
language,  that  when  a  word  has  such  meanings  as  intox- 
icate, wash,  overflow,  overwhelm,  not  to  say  sprinkle,  pour, 
and  dip,  immerse,  it  begins  with  sprinkle  or  its  equiva- 
lent, and  proceeds  to  develop  till  it  comes  to  mean  im- 
merse, never  reversing  that  rule  in  any  instance  in  all  the 
Semitic  and  Aryan  tongues.     Hence — 

9.  Not  only  is  the  boasted  law  of  immersionists  utterly 
destroyed,  the  great  philological  principles  on  which  they 
boasted  their  readiness  or  ability  to  rest  every  thing  on  it, 
but  sprinkling  is  established  as  the  primary  meaning  of 
hapto  and  baptidzo  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  and 
by  the  same  rule,  of  tabal,  amad,  and  the  rest. 

We  see  also  the  peculiarity  of  word-making  and  deri- 
vation. A  word  may  mean  to  break  open,  to  rupture, 
that  thence  comes  to  mean  pour,  sprinkle,  overflow,  wash, 
immerse.  Thus,  to  rupture  a  vessel,  eifect  a  break  in  it, 
water  may  gush  out,  pour,  or  be  sprinkled,  as  the  rupture 
is  large  or  small.  A  blood-vessel  may  be  ruptured,  and 
sprinkle  and  stain,  soil  objects.  A  dam  or  great  body  of 
water  break  the  levee  or  bank  and  overflow,  overwhelm 
completely  and  wash  off  all  before  it,  drown  the  living. 

To  press  an  object  may  cause  its  liquid  or  water  or  the 
juices  in  it  to  gush  or  burst  out,  sprinkle  objects  around. 
Thence  increased,  a  stream  pours  forth,  as  wine  from  the 


PHILOLOGY,  OE   SCIENCE    OF    LANGUAGE.  197 

press.  Hence  sprinkle,  stain,  and  pour  come  from  press. 
But  pressing  an  object  sinks  (immerses)  it  in  a  yielding 
element,  as  mud,  water,  etc.  Hence  press  often  comes  to 
mean  to  immerse. 

To  thrust  down,  cast  down  .water,  blood,  etc.,  sprinkles. 
Hence  words  meaning  to  thrust,  cast  down,  often  apply  to 
rain,  showers  of  rain.  To  thrust  down  heavy  objects  into 
yielding  elements,  as  water,  results  in  immersing  it. 

These  are  examples  of  the  developing  of  meanings  to 
words.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  how  infinitely  vain  and 
utterly  destitute  of  science  are  all  those  rules  so  much 
relied  on  by  immersionists ! 

Two  words  may  have  primarily  the  same  meaning,  yet 
apply  to  different  objects,  consequently  take  on  entirely 
opposite  meanings.     This  occurs  constantly. 

The  old  philologists  relied  on  arbitrary  rules,  took 
dogmatic  views,  and  bent  philology  to  those  views;  and 
hence  the  abyss  of  darkness  and  world  of  confusion  in 
Avhich  they  left  this  subject.  They  would  assume  a  word 
to  be  the  same  with  another  in  a  kindred  dialect;  as  amadj 
to  stand,  in  Hebrew,  and  amad,  to  wash,  sprinkle,  in 
Syriac,  Arabic,  because  spelt  alike,  though  wholly  un- 
like in  meaning.  Nay,  Gesenius  runs  stark  mad,  and 
finds  as  much  support  or  more  in  the  remotest  Aryan 
branches  if  a  word  be  spelt  with  not  a  radical  in  com- 
mon if  they  sound  remotely  alike !  His  carelessness  may 
be  seen,  as  well  as  A.  Clarke  and  others  too  numerous  to 
note,  in  assuming  the  Arabic  naza,  to  leap,  etc.,  to  be  the 
root  of  the  Hebrew  nazah,  to  sprinkle.  Whereas  the 
Arabic  is  nazaeh,  sprinkle ;  and  still  stronger  in  ^thiopic 
natzach,  to  sprinkle.  The  philologist  has  to  keep  in  view 
constantly  the  fact  that  in  Semitic  oftener  far  than  Indo- 
European    tongues    T   {z)    interchanges  with    *;>*  (tz),  both 


198  BAPTISM, 

iiiterchange  with  L*  (t),  C  (s),  r  (sh),  then  with  n  (^/i),  while 
-  (6),  C  (/:>/?),  interchange,  as  well  as  other  letters.  He  can 
not  trace  root-meanings  without  observing  these  and  many 
other  facts.  There  may  be  a  word  having  one  or  more 
meanings  fixed  and  settled.  The  corresponding  word  in 
Arabic,  ^thiopic,  or  Syriac  may  be  changed  in  spelling 
by  these  rules,  and  take  on  many  meanings  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew  word,  yet  the  same  or  kindred  meaning  will 
crop  out,  showing  the  root  identity.  Hence  the  science 
of  philology  is  at  once  one  of  the  most  interesting,  im- 
proving, and  useful  studies  to  man. 


BAPTIDZO — WASH.  199 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

B  APTiDzo  —  Wash. 

While  all  admit  that  baptldzo  generally  occurs  in  the 
New  Testament  and  Apocrypha  in  the  sense  of  wash, 
cleanse,  it  never  so  occurs  in  the  classics.  Dr.  Conant, 
out  of  some  two  thousand  years  of  literature,  could  not 
find  a  place  where  it  meant  wash.  On  the  contrary,  as 
Schleusner  says,  though  stating  that  the  word  in  Greek 
writers  means  "immerse,  merse  in  wat^r,"  "yet  in  this 
sense  it  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testament."  So  does 
Stokius,  who  urges  that  it  applied  to  washing,  cleansing 
where  it  was  effected  "by  sprinkling  the  water,'^  "hence 
transferred  to  the  solemn  rite  of  baptism."* 

Another  point.  Emersion,  rising  out  of  the  water,  is 
never  implied  in  baptldzo.  Immersion  does  not  involve 
or  imply  emersion.  To  the  extent  that  baptidzo,  in  later 
Greek,  where  at  times  it  occurs  for  a  total  immersion,  at 
times  for  a  partial  sinking,  immersed  objects,  so  far  as  the 
force  of  the  word  goes,  it  leaves  them  immersed.  Wherever 
it  sinks,  completely  immerses,  a  living  being,  it  perishes.  In 
every  instance  in  Dr.  Conant's  long  list  of  Greek  citations, 
and  he  erroneously  professes  to  exhaust  the  use  of  the 
word,  in  not  an  instance  does  the  word  fail  to  leave  the 
object  immersed,  or  submersed,  in  or  under  the  element 
into  or  under  which  the  object  was  mersed.  How  could 
wash,  cleanse,  or  purify,  philologically  come  from  such  a 
*  See  chapter  on  Lexicons,  where  these  lexicons  are  cited. 


200  BAPTISM. 

use?  On  the  contrary,  every  entire  immersion  in  water 
in  all  cases  given  resulted  in  death.  Hence  baptldzo  in 
the  classics  often  means  to  drown.  If  the  objects  immersed 
by  baptidzo  were  dead — inanimate — decay,  ruin,  or  destruc- 
tion ensued.  No  washing  resulted  or  purification.  Not ,' 
only  does  this  rule  the  classics  out  of  the  question,  there-  i 
fore,  but  it  amazes  us  that  men  of  learning  should  have 
failed  to  examine  into  the  world  of  facts  which  languages 
present  here ;  and  even  Dr.  Dale,  so  voluminous  on  this 
subject,  while  professing  to  find  new  light,  bases  his  struct- 
ure as  to  philology  upon  the  groundless  position  that 
wash  is  derived  from  immerse!  He  and  those  he  follows 
liave  immerse  to  get  wash,  wash  to  get  purify,  purify  to 
get  sprinkle,  sprinkle  to  get  baptism ;  yet  if  the  universe 
depended  on  it  he  could  not  find  a  word  that  primarily 
and  properly  meant  to  immerse  that  ever  came  to  mean 
to  wash,  to  purify,  to  cleanse.  On  the  contrary,  as  shown 
in  all  languages,  a  cloud  of  witnesses  arise  to  show  that 
words  primarily  meaning  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to  moisten, 
bedew,  etc.  come  to  mean  to  wash,  wet,  soak,  whelm,  over- 
whehn,  dip,  immerse.  The  truth  is  completely  vindica- 
ted— -its  principles  absolutely  perfect.  To  pour  or  sprin- 
kle tlie  liquid  is  to  wet,  moisten.  If  a  coloring  element, 
it  stains,  colors.  Pouring  water  on  objects  tends  to  wash, 
cleanse.  In  many  places  sprinkling  water  cleanses,  washes. 
Being  purified,  things  are  appropriated  to  new  and  better 
purposes.  We  may  Avash,  dipping  the  object  in  water  and 
rubbing  it;  but  a  mere  dip,  unlike  the  friction  of  pouring, 
does  not  wash.  The  dust-covered  herbs,  houses,  trees,  ' 
fences,  are  all  washed  by  the  sprinkling  and  pouring  rain. 
Pouring  may  soak,  saturate,  drench,  overwhelm,  submerse. 
The  philology  is  perfect  and  we  dismiss  this  point. 

That  the  Jews  washed  by  pouring  and  sprinkling  mostly 


BAPTIDZO WASH.  201 

is  seen  in  the  use  of  the  great  laver  (Chapter  VII) ,  and  in 
2  Kings  iii,  11,  "This  is  Elisha,  that  poured  water  on  the 
hands  of  Elijah,"  as  well  as  from  John  ii,  6,  where  surely 
they  did  not  wash  in  the  vessel,  as,  first,  it  was  physically 
impossible  as  to  dipping  the  body,  and  second,  it  would 
have  ceremonially  defiled  the  water  (Num.  xix,  21,  22; 
Lev.  X,  34;  xv,  34-36;  Lightfoot,  Horte  Heb.  et  Tal., 
ii,  417);  third,  much  less  would  our  Savior  have  turned 
water  defiled  by  washing  hands  in  it  into  wine  to  be  used 
as  a  drink.  But  we  have  the  Jews'  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  water  necessary  for  washing  the  hands,  for  it 
is  urged  by  some  that  Mark  vii,  3,  4,  demands  us  to  un- 
derstand that  the  hands  simply  were  plunged  in  water 
where  the  Greek  is  baptized.  On  washing  hands  among 
the  Jews  we  have  the  following  in  Jadaim  (cap.  1,  hoi.  1) : 
"They  allot  a  fourth  part  of  a  log  for  the  washing  of 
one  person's  hands,  it  may  be  of  two;  half  a  log  for 
three  or  four ;  a  whole  log  for  five  or  ten  ;  nay,  to  a  hun- 
dred; with  this  provision,  saith  Rabbi  Jose,  tliat  the  last 
that  washeth  hath  no  less  than  a  fourth  part  of  a  log 
for  himself"  Lightfoot,  Horse  Heb.  et  Tab,  ii,  254. 
Now  a  log  is  five  sixths  of  a  pint  (g) ;  a  fourth  of  five 
sixths  is  five  twenty-fourths  or  nearly  one  fifth  {^)  of  a 
pint.  Who  could  immerse  or  submerge  his  two  hands 
in  one  fifth  of  a  pint  of  water?  Hence  in  Erubhin,  folio 
21,  2  :  "It  is  stated  of  Rabbi  Akibah  that  he  was  bound 
in  prison,  and  Rabbi  Joshua  ministered  unto  him  as  his 
reader.  He  daily  brought  him  water  by  measure  [to 
drink].  One  day  the  keeper  of  the  prison  met  him,  and 
said  to  him,  ^Thou  hast  too  much  water  today.'  He 
poured  out  half  and  gave  him  half  When  he  came  to 
Rabbi  Akibah  he  told  him  the  whole  matter.  Rabbi 
Akibah  saith  unto  him,  ^Give  me  some  water  to  wash  my 


202  BAPTISM. 

hands/  The  other  saith  unto  him,  ^  There  is  not  enough 
for  thee  to  drink,  and  how,  then,  shouldst  thou  have  any  to 
wash  thy  hands?'  To  whom  he  said,  ^It  is  better  that  I 
should  die  [tliat  is,  by  thirst]  than  that  I  should  transgress 
the  mind  of  my  colleagues.' ''  That  they  did  at  times  par- 
tially dip  the  hands  or  one  of  them,  no  one  would  question. 
It  depended  on  the  water,  the  vessel,  and  circumstances. 
This  shows  absolutely  that  they  never  depended  on  dip  or 
immerse  for  washing.  See  also  John  xiii,  where  the  Savior 
washed  the  disciples'  feet,  and  Luke  vii,  38,  44,  where 
the  woman  washed  Christ's  feet  with  her  tears.  The 
learned  Pococke  renders  the  passage  "  put  into  the  water," 
sprinkle  the  hands  with  water.^^  Leigh,  Lightfoot,  Cas- 
tell,  Buxtorf,  etc.  show  the  same  to  be  true. 

••*  Manus  aqua  perfiidit  (Nat.  Miscellan.,  chap,  ix,  p.  388 ;  Gale's  Ke- 
flec,  Let.  iv,  Wall,  ii,  p.  96). 


BAPTIDZO    IN   THE    HOUSE   OF   ITS   FEIE:N'DS,        203 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Baptidzo  in  the  House  of  its  Friends — The  Con- 
cord OF  this  Discord. 

It  Is  certainly  interesting  to  see  how  the  learned  ini- 
mersionists  conflict  with  each  other  when  stating  so  em- 
phatically their  fundamental  principles  and  the  results  of 
their  critical  researches;  and  still  more  so  to  notice  their 
self-conflicting  statements  and  infinite  departures  from  the 
true  laws  and  science  of  language. 

Mr.  Ingham  (Hand-book  of  Baptism^  p.  26)  says,  ^'  The 
Greek  verb  baptidzo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  ought  to  be 
so  rendered  in  our  translation/^  etc.  ^^By  immersion  we 
mean  [what!  has  immersion  now  to  be  defined  also?]  an 
entire  covering  or  a  complete  surrounding  with  some  ele- 
ment.^'  Here  the  latest  distinguished  author,  Avith  Car- 
son, Conant,  Campbell,  Fraser  all  before  him — Cox  and 
Morell  before  him — refutes  Carson,  rejects  Gale,  and  ruins 
all  former  canons  of  immersion.  Halley  differs.  Ingham 
next  refutes  Carson  on  ^'putting  into''  the  element  as  be- 
ing implied  in  baptidzo;  while  such  men  as  Fuller,  Mell 
of  Georgia,  and  others  go  down  before  the  broad  sweep  of 
his  tremendous  battle-ax.  He  quotes  Dr.  Halley  to  prove 
that  "baptize  is  to  make  one  thing  to  be  in  another  by 
dipping,  by  immersing,  by  burying,  by  covering  [what 
modes!!]  by  superfusion,  or  by  whatever  mode  effected,'' 
etc.  (page  27). 


204  BAPTISM. 

Here  the  strongest  writer  by  odds  that  has  appeared  in 
Europe  on  the  side  of  immersion  as  late  as  1866  declares, 
first,  that  dipping,  immersing,  burying,  covering,  pouring 
are  all  so  many  and  different  modes  of  baptism — so  it  re- 
sults in  ^^ complete  surrounding,'^  "entire  covering '';  sec- 
ond, that  baptism  may  be  accomplished  by  superfusion — 
pouring  upon;  nay,  by  ^'whatever  mode  effected";  third, 
is  there  any  dip,  or  sink,  or  plunge  in  superfusion  ?  Surely 
dipping  is  not  pouring  upon.  Yet  says  the  great  Dr.  Gale 
(London,  1711,  p.  9),  "We  can  not  believe  that  it  is  so 
doubtful  in  Scripture,  as  many  pretend,  whether  dipping 
only  be  baptism.  ...  I'll  begin  with  the  words  ftdTzrc^of 
and  l^d-Tto  \baptidzo  and  hapto],  for  they  are  synonymous" 
(Reflections  on  Wall,  ii,  p.  60,  Letter  iii,  ed.  1862).  Here 
Dr.  Gale  urges  that  only  dipping  is  baptism.  Burying  is 
not  dipping.  Covering  a  thing  is  not  dipping.  If  pour- 
ing water  on  an  object  is  dipping  it,  we  did  not  know  it. 
A  thing  may  be  dipped  and  not  covered  or  buried.  This 
Dr.  Gale  freely  admits.  He  says,  "The  word  does  not 
always  necessarily  imply  a  total  immersion  or  dipping 
[italics  his]  the  whole  thing  spoken  of  all  over,  which  I 
readily  allow;  but,  then,  sir,  we  should  remember  it  is  not 
from  any  thing  limiting  the  sense  of  8d7ZTt^o)  \haptidzo\ 
but  from  something  limiting  the  extent  of  the  action  in 
the  subject"  (Reflections  on  Wall,  Letter  iv,  p.  9,  vol.  2, 
etc.,  by  Dr.  Gale). 

This  is  racy — is  brilliant.  First,  haptidzo,  he  admits, 
does  not  "necessarily  imply  a  total  immersion."  It  does 
not  imply  "dipping  the  whole  thing  spoken  of  all  over." 
That  is,  if  a  man  is  baptized,  it  does  not  "  necessarily  im- 
ply" that  he  is  immersed  totally  or  "dipped  all  over."  If 
but  a  part,  nay,  a  small  part  of  him,  were  dipped  or  im- 
mersed, the  whole  man  is  baptized.     This  surrenders  the 


BAPTIDZO    IX    THE    HOUSE    OF    ITS    FRIENDS.        205 

whole  question.  It  becomes  rich  when  he  adds  that  ^'  it  is 
not  from  any  thing  limiting  the  sense  of  baptidzo,  but  from 
something  limiting  the  extent  of  the  action  on  the  sub- 
ject/' Exactly  so.  Hence  when  the  ^^  action  on  the  sub- 
ject'^  is  limited  to  a  sprinkling,  a  "superfusion/^  it  is  not 
because  the  word  does  not  at  times  apply  to  "  total  immer- 
sion/' but  because  something  "  limits  the  extent  of  the 
action"  from  being  an  immersion  or  dipping  at  all,  and 
Greek  applies  baptize  to  such  cases  of  limited  action. 

The  plain  English  of  the  statement  of  Dr.  Gale  is  this: 
When  the  administrator  simply  sprinkles  or  pours  water 
on  the  subject  baptidzo  applies  to  it  clearly  enough,  but  it 
is  not  because  of  any  thing  ^Mimiting  the  sense  of  bap- 
tidzo, but  from  something  limiting  [tlie  administrator]  the 
extent  of  the  action  on  the  subject."  We  subscribe  to 
this  without  reservation.  And  because  baptidzo  is  and 
was  so  limited  in  its  action,  hence  it  does  not  necessarily 
imply  dipping  or  immersion. 

Dr.  Gale  innocently  prattles  on,  saying  that  though  a 
thing  be  "not  dipped  all  over,"  etc.,  yet  it  does  not 
"follow  that  the  word  in  that  place  does  not  signify  to 
dip;"  and  "I  believe  Mr.  Wall  will  allow  his  pen  is  dipped 
in  the  ink,  though  it  is  not  daubed  all  over  or  totally  im- 
mersed. .  .  .  What  is  true  of  any  one  part  may  be  said 
of  the  whole  complexly,  though  not  of  every  part  of  the 
whole  separately."  ^''  Then  wlien  we  pour  water  on  a  can- 
didate for  baptism,  that  part  is  covered  with  water.  When 
he  is  sprinkled  the  water  covers  the  parts  on  which  it  falls. 
If  only  the  forehead  is  dipped,  what  is  said  or  "  is  true  of 
any  one  part  may  be  said  of  the  whole  complexly" — so 
the  man  is  dipped.  Only  a  part  is  covered  when  water  is 
poured ;  but  what  is  true  of  a  part  may  be  said  of  the 
■■•■Reflections  on  Wall,  vol.  il,  pp.  90,  01,  Ijet.  iv. 


206  BAPTISM. 

whole  complexly — so  the  man  is  covered.  According  to 
this  most  learned  of  all  the  old  immersion  writers,  every 
one  who  is  sprinkled  or  has  water  poured  on  him  is  bap- 
tized, and  it  was  not  an  immersion  or  total  dipping,  for 
the  "  extent  of  the  action  ^^  was  limited  to  that  partial  dip — 
i.  e.  only  a  part  was  covered.  Nor  does  it  differ  as  to  the 
mode  of  covering,  for  you  can  do  this  as  well  ^'  by  super- 
fusion"  or  ^^by  pouring,"  Drs.  Morell  and  Cox  tell  us. 
And  to  cover  a  part  is  to  baptize  the  whole  man.  This  is 
Baptist  logic  and  argument. 

Dr.  R.  Fuller,  a  Baptist,*  says,  *^It  (baptidzo)  signifies 
to  immerse,  and  has  no  other  meaning."  Yet  in  the  same 
book  he  translates  baptidzo  by  ^^sink"  twelve  times  out  of 
twenty-two  instances,  twice  by  plunge,  once  "  dip,"  once 
''bury,"  once  "drowned"  (p.  48),  three  times  by  sub- 
merge, three  times  only  by  immerse.  In  less  than  a  page 
(pp.  47,  48)  he  renders  it  "sink"  seven  times  consecu- 
tively. In  another  place  (p.  17)  he  renders  it  "sink"  five 
times  in  less  than  half  a  small  page.     Here — 

(1)  He  gives  us  an  average  of  eleven  against  one 
against  immerse. 

(2)  He  contradicts  Gale,  Cox,  Ingham,  Halley. 

(3)  He  contradicts  himself;  for  to  sink  is  not  to  dip. 
Is  sink  the  same  as  plunge?  Is  dip  equivalent  to  drown? 
Is  drown  or  sink  the  same  as  the  plunge  he  administers  to 
a  subject  in  baptizing  him? 

Against  Ingham,  Halley,  and  Fuller,  Cox  lets  us  know 
that  "  The  idea  of  dipping  is  in  every  instance  conveyed, 
and  no  less  so  by  all  the  current  uses  of  the  terms"  bapto 
and  baptidzo.  Verily,  there  is  trouble  in  the  camp,  if 
Dr.  Conant,t  who  devoted  more  pains  and  expended  more 

-Third  ed.,  Charleston,  S.  C,  1854,  p.  25,  33-37. 

tConant's  book  on  classic  use  has  baptidzo  only  from  pages  1  to  72. 


BAPTIDZO    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    ITS    FRIENDS.         207 

labor  on  this  subject  than  all  imniersionists  together  for 
the  last  hundred  years,  out  of  sixty-three  consecutive  cases 
could  render  it  immerse  only  ten  times,  but  "  whelm  ^^  and 
"  overwhelm  ''  fifty-three  times ;  while  A.  Campbell  in  but 
two  lines  over  half  a  page  of  a  small  volume  renders 
it  '^overwhelm''  ten  times,  twice  in  same  space  '^over- 
flowed/^ and  out  of  thirty-four  cases  to  prove  its  proper 
meaning  only  renders  it  immerse  three  times — i.  e.  over 
ten  against  one.  Yet  another  defender  of  the  faith  tells 
us,  "The  idea  of  dipping  is  in  every  instance'*!  Is  dip 
the  same  as  whelm  ?  Is  it  the  same  as  overflow  ?  Is  it 
the  same  as  sink?  They  are  just  the  reverse.  Yet  Cox 
tucks  about  and  admits  a  man  may  be  immersed,  covered 
by  "  superfusion,''  which  contradicts  all  he  has  said  in 
favor  of  his  theory. 

To  make  it  worse  Dr.  Morell*  says  that  usually  it 
means  ''dip.''  "But  it  appears  quite  evident  that  the 
Avord  has  the  sense  of  covering  by  superfusion  [i.  e.  by 
pouring  upon].  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Cox.  Thus  far 
we  surrender  the  question  of  immersion  with  Dr.  Cox." 
Drs.  Morell  and  Cox  sustain  Ingham  and  destroy  Drs. 
Fuller,  Gale,  Mell,  and  A.  Campbell.  All  this  perfectly 
sustains  the  position  that  primarily  aff'usion  was  the  import 
of  baptiae,  even  were  Cox  and  Morell  correct  in  detail. 

After  that  it  is  always  compounded  with  strengthening  prepositions; 
therefore  it  does  not  apply  at  all,  hut  is  rather  strong  proof  of  its  not 
I'cing  as  he  represents  in  many  cases.  But  in  the  cases  hetween  1  to 
72  it  occurs  ahout  one  hundred  and  forty-one  times.  In  these  he  ren- 
ders it  dip  seven  times — i.  e.  seven  against  one  hundred  and  thirtj'-four, 
i.  e.  his  own  texts  have  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  against  seven  of 
his  practice!  It  is  only  thirty-five  times  immerse  against  one  hundred 
and  six  against.  That  is,  he  puts  it  one  hundred  and  six  against  thirty- 
five  for  his  rendering.  Could  an  enemy  more  perfectly  destroy  their 
position  than  this  ? 

-Edinhurgh,  1848,  p.  167. 


208  BAPTISM. 

But  against  all  these  Baptist  doctors  Dr.  Booth* 
swoops  down  like  an  eagle  from  an  unpropitious  sky,  or 
like  a  furious  wind  that  threatened  to  unmoor  all  the 
vessels  that  ply  on  the  watery  grave  and  sweep  them  far 
up  on  dry  land  as  unworthy  of  a  place  on  the  "  deep/'  f 
He  says,  "The  verb  baptize,  in  this  dispute,  denotes 
an  action  required  by  divine  law.  .  .  .  What  is  that 
action?  Is  it  immersion,  or  pouring,  or  sprinkling ?'' 
"A  single  specific  enacting  term/'  "  Baptize  is  a  specific 
term.''  "  The  English  expression  dip  is  a  specific  term." 
But  alas  for  this  "specific  action."  It  is  "whelmed"  by 
Cox,  Conant,  and  Morell ;  "  overwhelmed  "  by  its  advo- 
cate A.  Campbell;  Ingham,  Conant,  etc.,  "submerged," 
"sunk,"  "drowned;"  its  advocates  "  superfused,"  "soaked;" 
its  highest  points  "overflowed;"  its  best  advocates 
"drenched,"  "soaked,"  in  their  fruitless  endeavors  to 
save  it.  Desperation  seizing  them,  they  are  now  "intox- 
i(;ated,"  "made  drunk"  with  draughts  of  Quixotic  reme- 
dies; "soused,"  "put  under,"  "'engulfed"  in  the  house 
of  its  friends.  While  "undergoing"  all  these  trials  A. 
Campbell,  George  Campbell,  and  Conant  make  it  "  un- 
dergo "  a  contradiction  of  all  this,  and  "  endure "  still 
another  weight  in  the  New  Testament,  until  criticism  is 
exhausted,  consistency  is  wrecked,  the  immersion  theory 
"  perishes,"  and  is  ready  to  be  "  administered "  I  upon 
forever. 

*  London,  1799,  pp.  265,  280,  286.  A.  Campbell  takes  the  same  posi- 
tion in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Rice,  and  in  his  book  on  Christian  Baptism, 
that  it  is  specific  as  to  action — dip. 

t  Immersionists  often  urge  that  the  word  is  allied  with  "  deep." 

|A11  these  words  in  quotation-marks  are  actual  renderings  of  this 
"specific,"  "simple"  word  by  immersion  authors  of  highest  note,  and 
almost  every  one  of  them  given  it  by  A.  Campbell  and  Conant  in  their 
various  works,  versions,  etc.  "We  omit  the  "wash"  in  A.  Campbell's 
revision,  because  he  tells  us  it  was  an  oversight. 


BAPTIDZO    IN    THE    HOUSE   OF    ITS    FRIENDS.         209 

Prof.  Mell^  of  Georgia,  insists  that  '^  no  passage  in  any 
Greek  writings  up  to  and  immediately  after  the  time  of 
Christ  can  be  found  containing  these  words — baj^tidzo, 
baptisma,  baptismos — where  they  must  be  translated  by  any 
other  English  word  than  dip  or  immerse'^  (Baptism,  pp. 
16,  17).  ^'They  express  the  action  of  immersion,  and 
nothing  else''  (p.  16).  They  "  mean  immersion,  and  nothinr/ 
else''  (p.  15).  Italics  his.  Fortunately  for  Prof.  Mell  he, 
unlike  the  rest,  appends  here  no  proof-texts  from  classic 
Greek,  else  unmistakably  we  should  find  in  his  text-illus- 
trations, as  we  did  in  all  the  rest  of  their  writers,  the 
clear,  immediate,  and  overwhelming  refutations  of  his  bold 
assertion  in  his  own  proofs.  Certain  as  fate  would  have 
followed  such  renderings  of  baptidzo  as  "sink,''  "  whelm," 
"soak,"  "overwhelm,"  "plunge,"  "drown,"  "submerge," 
etc.,  and  perhaps  even  baptism  by  "superfusion."* 

Dr.  Carson,  the  most  popular  author  the  Baptists  have 
had  of  late  years,  and  professedly  learned,  says — for  each 
one  seems  determined  and  bent  on  "my  position" — "My 
position  is  that  it  always  signifies  to  dip;  never  expressing 
any  thing  but  mode.  Now  as  I  have  all  the  lexicographers 
and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be 

*  Since  examining  the  book  in  later  chapters,  lo !  wo  find  he  is  worse 
than  we  predicted!  In  three  pages  of  his  small  book  (38,  39,  40)  Mel! 
translates  haptidzo  by  1.  ''To  lay,''  ''laid  under  water";  2.  "Sink' 
(sunk)  five  times  out  of  ten  texts  " ;  3.  "Ruined  " ;  4.  "  Dip  " ;  5.  "  Im- 
merse"; 6.  "Steeped  or  soaked  in  wine";  7.  "Imbued";  8.  "Pressed 
doicn."  He  gives  the  English  of  immerse  as  sink  here  very  correctly 
several  times,  and  renders  the  same  word  in  one  sentence  by  two  and 
three  words,  thus,  "  Who  was  sunJc^  or  immersed,  or  pressed  down  by  the 
weight  of  debts  heaped  upon  him."  Page  28  he  says,  "  In  Hebrews 
ix,  10,  the  translators  render  the  word  baptismos  correctly  xoashiyig — 
'  which  stood  only  in  .  .  .  divers  washings' "  Here  we  have  nine  dif- 
ferent renderings  out  of  eleven  texts ! !  We  have  lay,  rni7i,  press  down, 
soak.  Apply  these  definitions  to  baptism  in  the  New  Testament — I  in- 
deed "lay  "  you;  he  shall  "ruin''  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  etc. 
14 


210  BAPTISM; 

necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two  with  regard  to  the  autlior- 
ity  of  lexicons.  .  .  .  The  meaning  of  a  word  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  actual  inspection  of  the  passages  in  whieli 
it  occurs,  as  often  as  any  one  chooses  to  dispute  the  judg- 
ment of  the  lexicographers/^ 

It  always  signifies  "to  dip/^  then,  says  r>r.  C.  If  so, 
then  it  never  means  to  immerse,  sink,  nor  to  whehn, 
drown,  intoxicate,  etc.,  nor  "cover  by  superfusion/'  But 
his  learned  brother.  Dr.  Cox,  says,  "A  person  may  indeed 
be  immersed  by  pouring  [i.  e.  sink,  plunge  by  pouring ! !], 
but  immersion  is  the  being  plunged  into  water  or  (the 
being)  overwhelmed  by  it.  Were  the  water  to  ascend  from 
the  earth  it  would  still  be  baptism  were  the  person  wholly 
covered  by  it^'  (p.  46). 

Where  is  the  "  never  expressing  any  thing  but  mode  ^' 
here?  Where  is  the  dip?  Where  is  the  plunge?  Where 
is  the  sink,  i.  e.  immerse?  To  "dip^^  is  to  put  an  object 
either  partly  or  wholly  into  an  element,  so  that  it  touches 
it  at  least,  and  at  once  withdraw  it.  Plunge  does  not  im- 
ply withdrawal  at  all,  never  provides  for  it,  and  implies 
more  or  less  force  and  rapidity  in  execution.  Immerse 
implies  not  withdrawal  at  all.  Dip  does  in  all  these  au- 
thors, as  they  do  not  use  it  in  derived  and  remoter  senses, 
as  ships,  boats,  dipping  water,  etc. 

BAPTISTS    IX    HARMONY. 

Now  with  "all  the  commentators  and  lexicographers 
against"  "his  position,'^  Carson  insists  that  baptidzo  means 
to  "  put  into."  Conant  says  it  is  to  "  put  into — under." 
Ingham  says  it  means  to  "put  into."  In  Leviticus  it 
{bapto)  is  rendered  "put  into"  (pp.  31-32).  He  renders  it 
"  put  into  "  ten  times  (pp.  27-29).    Nay,  indorses  the  idea  of 


BAPTIDZO    IN    THE    HOUSE    OF    ITS    FRIENDS.         211 

^'  comins;  into  the  condition  of  beino-  under  water.'^  Now, 
first,  to  "put  into/'  which  Conant,  Ingham,  Carson,  A. 
Campbell,  and  others  say  is  the  exact  import  or  force 
of  baptidzo,  is  not  necessarily  '^to  dip,''  "plunge,"  or 
'Mmmerse.'^  You  can  "put  into"  without  either  of  these 
actions.  Nay,  second,  the  word  pour  in  Greek  as  well  as 
in  Latin  both  means  to  "put  into"  and  "to  mix"  often. 
"Pat  water  into  a  basin "=^" pour"  it  into  it.  This  word, 
that  means  to  "  put  into,"  is  translated  by  Passow,  Wahl, 
and  others  by  to  "sprinkle,"  "besprinkle"  over  and 
again.  Ed.  Robinson^s  Greek  Lexicon  renders  ballo  "put 
or  pour"  several  times.  How  ruinous  to  immersionists 
are  their  favorite  words.  No  word  exactly  suits  them. 
They  give  us  immerse.  They  have  to  turn  round  and  tell 
us  what  that  means,  define  it  in  detail  and  by  most  oppo- 
site words.  To  "surround  completely;"  that  won't  do. 
The  same  writer  in  the  same  line  tells  us  it  is  an  "entire 
covering."  Yea,  it  is  to  "put  into" — it  is  to  dip.  But 
each  of  these  words  or  expressions  are  widely  different. 
In  Exodus  xxx,  18,  I  read,  "Put  (i/./elcqj  ekcheeis — pour) 
water  therein."  Dr.  Gale  says  twice  that  ^'baptidzo''  sig- 
nifies only  to  dip  or  put  into"  (pp.  69,  74).  As  Christ  and 
Moses  use  a  word  for  "put  into"  that  often  means  to 
sprinkle,  to  ponr  (cheo  and  ballo),  and  if  "put  into"  is  the 
meaning  of  bapto  and  baptidzo,  it  is  crushing  to  immersion 
and  very  satisfactory  to  us.  Conant  says  (Baptizein,  p. 
89),  "It  means  simply  to  put  into  or  under  water  (or  other 
substance"),  etc.  A.  Campbell  (Debate  with  Rice,  p.  126), 
"Put  himself  under  the  water."  Dr.  Gale  says  baptidzo 
signifies  nothing  "but  to  dip  or  put  under  or  into."  "Dip 
or  put  into"  (Reflections  on  Wall,  2,  chap,  iii,  pp.  64, 
96). 


212  BAPTISM. 

A   TOUCH,    A    FEW    DROPS    WILL   DO. 

Luke  V,  38 :  "  New  wine  must  be  put  into  new  bot- 
tles." Ttiere  is  the  precious  word  that  defines  immersion, 
that  defines  baptidzo  in  immersion  writers.  Yet  this  same 
word  is  rendered  (Matt,  xxvi,  12),  "  She  hath  poured  this 
ointment,"  etc.  See  also  Matthew  ix,  17,  where  it  occurs 
also.  This  is  one  of  the  words  Hinton,  the  Baptist,  puts 
for  pour.  It  seems  to  us  that  Dr.  Gale  is  as  hard  pressed 
as  was  my  friend  Dr.  W.  T.  Brents,  of  Tennessee,  at 
Franklin,  in  debate,  1873,  when,  being  pressed  on  dip  as 
used  in  the  version  of  James,  he  said,  "  Could  I  wield 
the  power  I  could  dip  an  elephant  in  a  spoonful  of 
blood."  Hear  the  learned  doctor:  "  For  if  the  word  (bap- 
tidzo) does  but  signify  to  dip  I  ask  no  more.  Let  it  relate 
to  the  whole  body  or  a  part  of  it  only;  either  way  I  gain 
my  point"  (ii,  110).  He  quotes  Matthew  xxvi,  23,  on  baji- 
to,  "  he  that  dippeth,"  "And  all  the  use  he  (Wall)  makes 
of  it  is  only  to  observe  the  word  does  not  here  mean  the 
dipping  of  the  whole  hand.  But  this  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose;  for  the  question  is  not  about  the  whole  or  a 
part  of  the  subject,  but  whether  the  Greek  word  signifies 
only  to  dip,  or  any  thing  else"  (p.  112,  ibid.).  In  a  word, 
Dr.  Gale  admits  the  word  does  not  necessarily  imply 
envelopment,  covering,  burial,  but  if  only  the  subject  be 
applied  to  the  element,  the  most  partial  entrance  by  the 
smallest  part,  end  of  the  finger,  end  or  point  of  the  pen, 
the  whole  is  dipped !  He  was  too  good  a  Hebrew  scholar 
as  well  as  Greek  not  to  know  that  at  least  from  his  own 
standpoint  every  dip  in  the  Bible,  save  one  or  two  at 
most,  failed  to  be  what  immersionists  require — they  were 
not  complete  immersions. 


ANCIEXT   CHITICISMS — ERRORS.  213 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Ancient  Criticisms — Errors. 

If  immersionists  have  been  in  utter  confusion  to  find 
adequate  words  to  express  their  conception  of  baptism, 
Avhich  surely  should  close  tlieir  mouths  against  other 
parties  about  translating  the  word,  they  are  no  less  con- 
founded as  to  the  original  or  primary  meaning  of  haptidzo. 
Not  only  they,  but  those  who  have  assumed  immerse  as 
the  primary  meaning  have  occupied  a  position  alike  un- 
true and  uncandid,  while  the  more  candid  have  been 
driven  about  without  sail  or  rudder. 

1.  Beza,  a  favorite  author  with  all  immersionists  be- 
cause not  understood  (for,  as  will  in  due  time  appear,  he 
taught  that  even  John  the  Baptist  poured  the  water  on 
tlie  people  in  baptism — effundo),  says,  "  Bap-Kzi'^a)  (haptidzo) 
diifers  from  do^mi  (dmiai),  in  that  dunai  means  to  sink 
deeply  (submergere)^'  (Annot.  Matt.  iii). 

2.  Casaubon,  a  name  much  paraded  indeed,  says,  ^'  This 
was  the  rite  of  baptizing,  that  persons  were  plunged  into 
the  water ;  which  the  very  word  baptizein  (baptize)  suffi- 
ciently declares  [it  declares  nothing  of  the  kind,  and 
Conant  and  others  admit  it  implies  no  particular  element, 
applies  to  any  material];  which,  as  it  does  not  signify 
dunein  (that  is,  a  specific  word  for  immerse),  to  sink  to  tlie 
bottom  and  perish,  so  doubtless  it  is  not  epipolazeinj  to 
swim  on  the  surface.  For  these  three  words  are  of  dif- 
ferent significations"  (Annot.  on  Matt,  iii,  Ingham,  90). 


214  BAPTISM. 

3.  Terretinus,  Vossius,  Witsius,  and  Suicer  all  follow 
this  almost  verbatim,  and  the  rest  of  the  old  school  follow 
them.  Pasor  and  other  old  authors  follow  with  the  same 
assertion  about  dunai.     See  Pasor\s  Lexicon  on  baptidzo. 

Now,  first,  these  authors  use  the  very  Greek  word  that 
they  themselves  render  by  mergere  in  every  case,  '^  sub  " 
added,  and  dunai,  one  of  the  words  for  immerse;  and  its 
force  is  destroyed  by  putting  It  into  actual  English,  sink, 
and  retaining  a  Latin  word,  immerse,  for  baptidzo.  Second, 
dunai  {endunai  and  katadunai)  is  the  very  word  used  by 
the  Greeks,  used  by  the  Greek  fathers  in  nearly  every 
case  when  they  wish  to  say  immerse.  When  they  defined 
that  the  canon  meant  immerse  for  baptism,  this  is  the 
word  they  used  both  in  its  verbal  and  substantive  form.* 
Conant  gives  this  case,  ^' Three  immersions  in  one  bap- 
tism," as  it  is  in  the  Greek.f  He  does  all  he  can  to 
conceal  the  force  of  it  by  rendering  immerse  "sink"  every 
time,  and  baptism  by  immerse.  That  is,  he  renders  the 
real  word  for  immerse  (kataduo)  by  sink,  the  true  English 
word,  and  baptism  by  the  Latin  of  sink.  Conant  quotes, 
''Then  when  we  emerge  (ana-dunai)/^  etc.  "For  that 
the  child  (kata-dusai)  sinks  down  (is  immersed)  thrice  in 
the  font  and  comes  up  again  (ana-dusai)/^  is  emerged, 
properly.    How  could  the  child  come  up  again? J     Where 

••■  The  apostolic  canons,  sixth  century  a.d.,  say,  "  If  a  bishop  or  pres- 
byter shall  not  perform  thi^ee  imynersions  {bapti»maia)  for  one  initiation, 
but  one  baptism,"  etc.  This  is  the  only  place  in  all  their  literature  where 
baptisma  stands  for  immersion,  and  it  is  plural — baptismata.  But  Zo- 
ni?ras,  the  Greek,  explained  this  canon  thus :  "  The  canon  here  calls  the 
three  baptisms  th^ee  immersions — kntaduseis  " — Kara  and  dvvai,  to  sink, 
be  immersed. 

t  Tcf  rphg  Karadi.'aetc  .  .  .  h  evi  iSa-rlGjuari — tas  treis  kataduseis  .  .  . 
en  heni  baptisynati.  Conant's  Baptizein,  pages  106,  108,  110,  117,  119, 
133,  full  of  examples  of  dvvac^  dunai,  endunai,  katadunai  used  for  baptism, 
anadunai  for  emergence.  %  Baptizein  fp.  108). 


ANCIENT    CRITICISMS — EKRORS.  215 

the  Greek  reads  '^the  threefold  immersion  and  emersion/^ 
Conant  has  it  ^^the  threefold  sinking  down  and  coming 
up/^*  In  most  of  the  cases  the  parties  were  infants 
under  a  year  old.     How  came  they  up? 

Heliodorus,  about  a.d.  390:  ^'And  being  already  bap- 
tized [i.  e.  overwhelmed  by  the  waves,  as  the  ship  was  in 
a  storm],  and  wanting  little  of  being  immersed — kata- 
dunai — some  of  the  pirates  at  first  attempted  to  leave  and 
get  aboard  of  their  own  bark/^  f  Notice  here,  in  this 
quotation  cited  by  Conant  and  baptidzomenon,  rendered  by 
him  '^  becoming  immerged  and  wanting  little  of  sinking, 
some  of  the  pirates  attempted  to  leave,"  etc.,  first,  the 
ship  was  baptized  by  the  storm  dashing  the  waves  upon  it. 
It  was  "  baptized "  but  not  ^^  immersed ; "  second,  if 
'*  already  immerged  '^  how  could  the  pirates  be  calculating, 
some  whether  to  desert  it  or  not  and  others  not  even  yet 
resolved  to  desert  it?  third,  notice  that  baptize  here 
is  contrasted  with  immersion.  See  also  Dr.  Gale  on 
dunein  (Wall,  vol.  2). 

How  now  can  dunai  mean  to  perish,  necessarily,  when 
not  only  it,  but  when  strengthened  by  kata  to  give  it  ad- 
ditional force,  still  so  far  from  implying  such  an  immer- 
sion as  necessarily  takes  to  the  bottom  or  causes  to  perish, 
it  is  the  very  word  used  to  express  the  mode  of  the  bap- 
tism which  we  call  immersion  and  trine-immersion?  One 
more  case  out  of  Conant,  p.  106,  ^^  For  to  be  baptized, 
even  immersed  {kataduesthai),X  then  to  emerge,"  etc. 
Again,  '^For  as  he  who  is  immersed  in  the  waters  (en- 
dunon),  and  baptized,"  etc.  § 

^'TcEirissce  Icatadusai  kai  anadusai.  Here  is  dunai  with  kata  and  ana 
— to  express  immersion  and  emersion. 

t  "11(^77  Se  l^aTTTii^o/uivcjv  koI  Karadvvai,  etc.     (See  Conant,  page  18).  ; 

}  Yet  Dr.  Graves  repeats  this  blunder  (Debate,  p.  289). 

^  Baptizein, .  104.  'Evdvvuv  h  tolgl  vdaai  Kal  (3aTTiC6uevog — here  we 
have  en  dunoi.  to  be  mersed  in — immers'i^d. 


216  BAPTISM. 

A.  Campbell  quotes  Basil,  A. D.  360:  ''By  three  immer- 
sions the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  accomplished."^^ 
He  adds  several  more  where  both  endunal  and  hatadunai 
express  his  idea  of  an  immersion.  Con  ant  therefore  says 
of  baptidzo  (p.  89),  "It  means  simply  to  put  into  or  under 
water  (or  other  substance),  without  determining  whether 
the  object  immersed  sinks  to  the  bottom  or  floats  in  the 
liquid,  or  is  immediately  taken  out."  He  adds  on  same 
page  that  the  word  baptidzo  is  also  used  where  a  living 
being  is  put  under  water  for  the  purpose  of  drowning,  and 
of  course  is  left  to  perish  in  the  immersing  element."  No 
one  will  dispute  this.  Ingham,  Carson,  Cox,  and  A.  Camp- 
bell give  many  illustrations  of  it,  and  A.  Campbell  there- 
fore renders  it  to  "droAvn."     Here,  then,  we  see — 

4.  That  these  writers  demonstrate  to  us  that  baptidzo  is 
used  in  classic  Greek  frequently  in  the  very  sense  which 
they  attach  to  dunai — sink  that  they  may  perish,  while 
dunai  is  used  to  express  the  force  of  baptidzo  when  it  is 
used  for  an  immersion  where  the  party  does  not  perish. 

5.  Hence  this  old  theory,  being  crushed  by  Conant  and 
his  associates,  and  utterly  exploded  and  abandoned  by 
them,  it  follow\s  that  the  criticisms,  views,  and  arguments 
that  Pasor,  Terretinus,  Casaubon,  Sucier,  Beza,  Vossius, 
Witsius,  and  others  built  upon  such  crudities,  must  fall  so 
far  as  their  support  goes.  On  this  false  conceit,  and  the 
assumption  denied  by  all  immersionists  that  Jewish  prose- 
lyte baptism  was  before  Christ  and  followed  by  the  apos- 
tles, the  old  immersionists  of  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and 
seventeenth  centuries  built  all  their  arguments  for  immer- 
sion. The  other  was  the  assumption  of  the  oneness  of 
classic  and  Biblical  Greek,  though  they,  despite  their 
theory,  were  forced  to  see  baptidzo  was  an  exception. 

*  En  trisi  tais  katadusesi  (Chris.  Baptism,  p.  182). 


ANCIENT   CEITICISMS — ERRORS.  217 

They  differ  equally  in  selecting  the  word  to  express 
the  primary  meaning  of  hapto  and  baptidzo.  Pasor,  a 
favorite  with  immersionists,  gives  bapto  as  ^'  derived  from 
bao,  Hebrew,  ba/^  ^^ whence  is  bapto''  equivalent^  he  says, 
to  the  Latin  mitto.  Schleusner,  in  his  Septuagint  Lexicon, 
derives  it  from  Hebrew  bo,  in  Hiphil,  heba."^  He  then 
gets  thrust,  lead  to,  pour  together,  moisten  or  bedew.  But 
all  this  all  critics,  and  all  iramersionists  especially,  will 
utterly  repudiate.  Gazes  derives  it  from  ballo,  which  not 
only  implies  to  throw  but  to  sprinkle  and  pour.  Still  less 
unscientific  is  the  present  disposition  of  immersionists  to 
discover  the  primary  meaning  of  words,  especially  of  this 
word.  Their  plan  is  to  find  what  is  in  a  given  age  or 
period,  a  most  common  or  prevailing  use  of  a  word,  or 
meaning  attached,  and  then  accept  that  as  proof  absolute 
of  its  primary  meaning.  Yet  there  is  not  a  Baptist  scholar 
that  does  not  know  such  a  rule  to  be  utterly  false  and 
unscientific.  On  the  contrary,  ninety-nine  words  out  of 
every  hundred  in  all  Indo-European  and  Semitic  lan- 
guages are  used  most  constantly  in  figurative  senses  and 
not  in  the  primary  sense  at  all.  This  is  so  true  that  no 
one  will  deny  it,  and  is  sufficiently  explained  in  all  scien- 
tific works  on  the  subject  of  philology.  The  truth  is,  there 
are  less  than  five  hundred  root-words  in  our  language  of 
one  hundred  thousand  words.  But  where,  in  what  liter- 
ature, and  in  what  department  of  life  will  words  most 
perfectly  hold  or  retain  their  primary  meanings? 

BAPTIDZO    IX    THE    CLASSICS. 

In  medicine  and  theology  words  will  most  perfectly 
retain  their  primitive  meaning  for  reasons  plain  to  every 

■^Pasor:  BaTrrw,  .  .  .  derivatur  a  (Sdu  pro  quo  j3atvo)  et  Heh.  ^^  unde 
est  QaTTTO),  etc.  "Schlcusner  —  LXX  Lex:  (Sarrcj,  .  .  .  J^lb,  in  Hipli. 
^2^  adduc'or  Lev.  xi,  £2,  iynmiUafvr,  machcds,  confundo,  pa.rjo,  madeo  " 


218  BAPTISM. 

mind.  In  law  they  will  stand  the  next  best  chance.  It 
is  in  the  religious  use  of  the  word  we  may  most  naturally 
seek  for  its  primitive  meaning.  In  medical  Greek  works 
we  may  find  the  most  proper  aids  to  a  correct  understand- 
ing of  it.  But  right  here  we  find  that  we  are  left  almost 
exclusively  to  religious  use;  for  we  have  no  medical  work 
coming  down  from  remote  times  in  Greek,  Hippocrates 
and  Galen  being  the  oldest,  and  the  works  of  the  former 
interpolated. 

That  we  may  see  how  little  help  can  be  obtained  from 
classic  Greek,  let  us  note  the  following  facts,  which  will 
exclude  it  from  any  place  in  the  investigation  of  the  Bible 
or  New  Testament  use  of  this  word: 

Ingham,  the  Baptist,  quotes  Swarzius  thus:  ^''To  bap- 
tize, to  immerse,  to  overwhelm,  to  dip.'  To  authenticate 
this  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the  term  {baptidzo),  he 
(Swarzius)  adduces  the  following  authorities:  Polybius, 
iii,  72,  etc.,  Dio,  Porphyrins  de  Styrze,  Diodorns  Siculus, 
Strabo,  Josephus."  Now  this  is  a  fair  specimen  of  all 
arguments  to  discover  the  primary  meaning  of  baptidzo, 
Stephanus,  1572,  of  whom  Scapula,  Pasor,  Hedericus, 
Schrevellius,  Donnegan,  etc.  are  mere  abridgments,  omit- 
ting his  authorities  or  proof-texts,  gives  Plutarch  first,  w^ho 
died  one  hundred  and  forty  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ, 
and  brings  in  Plato  about  last;  while  Aristophanes,  B.C. 
450,  and  Pindar,  B.C.  522,  Aristotle,  etc.  are  not  quoted 
Schleusner  gives  Diodorus  the  Sicilian,  sixty  to  thirty 
years  before  Christ,  first,  ^^of  the  overflowing  {exundante) 
of  the  Nile;  next  Strabo,  who  died  about  A.D.  25.  AVahl, 
Avho  sought  to  improve  lexicography  with  Schleusner,  cites 
Josephus  first,  who  died  A.D.  93;  next  Polybius,  who  died 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  before  Christ. 
Passo\y.  quotes  Plutarch  first  (see  above),  and  Plato,  the 


ANCIENT    CRITICISMS — EERORS.  219 

first  prose-writer  who  uses  the  word,  last,  omitting,  with 
all  the  rest,  Aristophanes  and  Pindar,  the  first  Greeks  who 
are  known  to  have  used  the  word!!  Liddell  &  Scott  fol- 
low suit,  and  Ed.  Robinson  cites  Polybius  first,  Diodorus 
Siculus,  etc.,  and  does  not  improve  the  matter  an  iota. 
Conant  cites  Polybius  first,  Plutarch  next.  When  our 
immersionist  friends  get  angry  at  the  lexicographers  and 
"appeal  to  the  ultimate  authority"  —  the  writers  them- 
selves—Drs.  Conant,  Carson,  Gale,  Pendleton,  Ingham, 
A.  Campbell,  et  alii,  and  say  every  definition  must  be  sus- 
tained by  a  cited  text,  forgetting  all  that  though  in  He- 
brew and  Syriac,  taking  Gesenius^s  immerse  and  dip  under, 
i-'-'^',  when  there  is  no  such  Hebrew  word  at  all,  hence  no 
text  cited,  but  only  the  Chaldee  tzem;  when  they  so  con- 
stantly appeal  from  the  lexicons  to  the  classics,  we  demand, 
then,  proof-texts  for  the  primary  meaning.  To  quote  a 
writer  who  was  born  long  after  the  commission  was  given 
to  baptize,  supposing  classic  Greek  legitimate  evidence,  is 
an  infinite  absurdity.  To  suppose  that  the  above  lexi- 
cographers were  discussing  primitives  and  derivatives,  yet 
never  classifying  the  relative  claims  of  writers  to  accuracy 
of  style,  nor  their  ages,  no,  nor  their  centuries,  jumbling 
all  together — hotchpotching — is  to  accuse  them  of  a  stu- 
pidity most  disgraceful.  They  have  not  tried  to  trace  tlie 
difi'erence  in  the  meanings  of  this  word  or  its  root,  hapto, 
as  they  occur  in  different  ages.  They  give  to  both  of  them 
very  different  and  seemingly  opposite  meanings,  as  has 
been  seen,  yet  no  scientific  reason  whatever.  ''Dip''  is 
not  "  immerse  "  or  ''  sink."  ''  Plunge  "  is  not  ''  overflow." 
''Dip"  is  not  "whelm"  nor  "overwhelm."  "Sink"  is 
not  " inundate."  "  Wash "  is  not  "intoxicate"  nor  "  make 
drunk."  "Sprinkle"  and  "pour"  are  not  "drown." 
Freund  and  all  Latin  lexicographers  and  all  the  philolo- 


220  BAPTISM. 

gists  of  the  age  demand  that  we  trace  the  word  to  its 
earliest  occurrence,  find  its  meaning  or  meanings;  then  de- 
scend, tracing  every  shade  of  meaning  it  took  on,  and  why, 
how;  and  thus  by  the  "comparative  philology"  or  scientific 
processes  we  arrive  at  the  perfect  truth.  We  have  never 
seen  a  Greek  lexicon  that  cited  Pindar  or  Aristophanes  on 
baptidzo;  no,  not  even  Aristotle,  Alcibiades,  or  Demos- 
thenes. They  have  done  far  more  justice  to  the  root 
ftdTTTo),  especially  Stephanus.  Pindar  was  born  B.C.  522. 
Between  his  birth  and  that  of  the  average  authors  cited 
by  the  standard  lexicons  on  baptidzo  five  hundred  years 
intervene!  Is  this  looking  after  the  primary  meaning? 
Between  Aristophanes,  B.  c.  450,  and  the  ages  of  the  au- 
thorities cited,  over  four  hundred  years  pour  their  power- 
ful and  all-changing  tide.  Not  only  do  words  change 
wonderfully  in  such  periods  of  time,  but  nations  rise  and 
totter  to  their  fall,  empires  come  upon  the  vast  plains  of 
history,  flash  their  meteoric  splendors  across  the  darkness 
of  ages,  are  torn,  rent,  decay,  and  fall.  Cities  are  founded, 
rise  to  renown,  and  proclaim  themselves  eternal ;  but  decay 
eats  away  their  vitals  and  change  after  change  ensues,  till 
only  a  miserable  and  degenerate  rabble  is  left  to  tell  the 
tale  of  their  departed  greatness,  or  a  fisherman's  net  and 
hut  alone  are  left  as  a  sad  memorial  of  the  work  of  time. 
While  thus  empires,  nations,  kingdoms,  states,  cities,  and 
their  languages  have  all  been  changed  and  modified  by 
time,  yet  this  one  word  baptidzo  is  assumed  by  immer- 
sionists  to  have  been  a  diamond  of  such  essence,  a  pearl  of 
such  water,  as  to  resist  the  powers  that  wrought  change 
upon  every  thing  on  earth  and  made  deep  engravings  on 
the  brow  of  old  earth  itself,  yet  left  this  word  unaffected. 
Sublime  conceit !     Masterly  and  irresistible  faith  ! 


A^X'IENT    CRITICISMS — ERRORS.  221 

IS   THE    FOOT   THE   HEAD? 

To  see  how  unscientific  has  been  the  methods  of  the 
old  philologists  we  have  only  to  name  the  fact  that  Aratus, 
seven  hundred  years  later  than  Homer,  is  the  first  author- 
ity cited  by  Stephanus  on  hapto.  He  is  four  hundred 
years  later  than  ^schylus,  two  hundred  years  later  than 
Aristophanes,  who  uses  the  word  unusually  often  for  one 
not  writing  on  nature  or  art.  But  of  all  works  the  most 
astonishing  here  is  the  distinguished  Dr.  Dale's.  He  pro- 
fesses to  adopt  a  most  careful  system  of  investigating. 


While  he  deserves  the  greatest  credit — as  far  as  we  have 
seen  his  works,  two  first  volumes — for  research,  his  rule 
or  canon  of  interpretation  is  so  destitute  of  all  science 
that  it  is  simply  preposterous.  Seeking  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  words  in  dispute,  he  never  classifies  authors, 
disregards  time,  the  early  or  late  date  of  authors ;  but  all 
are  thrown  together  without  order  or  method,  and  the 
most  arbitrary  principles  adopted.  In  classic  Greek  here 
is  his  order. 

1.  Baptidzo.  Accidentally  Aristotle  is  put  first.  But 
in  the  same  table,  exerting  more  influence  though,  Archias, 
ninety  years  before  Christ,  comes  next,  and  as  of  equal 
influence  Julian,  a. d.  fourth  century,  comes  next!  Lu- 
cian  A.D.  120  follows.  Orpheus,  apocryphal  and  of  un- 
known late  date,  comes  next.  Plutarch  A.  d.  90,  the 
next!  In  his  next  chapter,  p.  254,  it  is  thus:  Achilles 
Tatius,  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  or  dawn  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury after  Christ,  quoted  three  times  consecutively ;  next 
an  apocryphal  ^sop,  writer  and  date  unknown ;  next  Alex. 


222  BAPTISM, 

Aphrod.,  about  A. D.  200,  three  citations!  In  the  next 
chapter  he  begins  with  Achilles  Tatius,  five  hundred  years 
after  Christ,  giving  four  citations,  p.  283.  Next,  on  spe- 
cific influence,  p.  317,  he  begins  with  Achilles  Tatius 
again!  The  next  cited  was  born  about  two  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after  Christ,  while  for  secondary  use  he  cites 
Plato  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ.  Though 
Plato  uses  the  word  in  a  metaphorical  sense  that  is  based 
on  a  literal  sense,  and  philological  science  owes  it  to 
science  to  use  the  fossil  remains  of  antiquity  to  resurrect 
the  living  forms  of  the  literal  language. 

On  bapto  he  begins  Avith  Theocritus,  eight  hundred 
years  later  than  Homer.  His  fourth  author  is  in  the  third 
century  after  Christ;  his  next  in  the  fourth;  his  next  in 
the  ninth  century  after  Christ ! !  That  is  to  say,  Dr.  Dale, 
with  Carson,  Gale,  and  the  rest,  quote  a  w^ord  used  eight- 
een hundred  years  later  than  its  first  occurrences  to  find 
its  primary  meaning.  If  that  is  philology  or  science  then 
Livingstone  could  have  discovered  the  head  of  the  Nile 
without  going  up  stream,  but  to  the  mouth  of  the  river, 
and  Jefferson  should  have  sent  Lewis  and  Clarke  to  the 
region  of  the  jetties,  instead  of  the  mountains  and  Indian- 
covered  hills  of  the  northwest,  to  discover  the  primal 
source  of  the  Mississippi. 

We  think  Dr.  Dale  altogether  wrong  in  his  assuming — 

(1)  That  ^'permanent  influence"  was  dreamed  of  by 
those  who  used  baptidzo, 

(2)  If  ^'  interposition^^  implied  such  an  idea,  so  did  pon- 
ticlzo,  huthidzo,  dunai,  kataporitidzo,  kataduo.  Homer, 
Herodotus,  Thucydides,  and  the  best  as  well  as  oldest 
Greek  literature  we  have,  use  the  last  word  where  later 
Iron-age  Greek — the  only  kind  Dr.  Dale  cites  or  can  cite 
for  his  immerse — uses  baptidzo  of  vessels  sinking,  etc. 


ANCIENT    CRITICISMS — ERROES.  223 

(3)  A  thousand  words  may  imply  in  their  effect  perma- 
nent influence,  including  kill,  murder,  sin ;  as,  to  cut  off 
a  chicken's  head  is  permanent  influence.  In  all  this  it  is 
simply  assuming  what  no  Greek  ever  dreamed  of  in  the 
use  of  that  or  any  other  word  of  mere  action  or  mode, 
however  varied  that  action. 

(4)  But  really  the  earliest  use  we  have  of  tlie  word  did 
not  contemplate  permanent  any  thing,  nor  particular  or 
specified  duration.  It  is  used  for  abuse,  aspersion,  as 
hatantleo  is  in  Greek.  It  is  used  for  becoming  drunk,  for 
confnsing  with  questions,  and  for  overflowing  land  with 
tide-water,  and  these  are  its  earliest  recorded  uses.  In 
not  one  of  these  is  permanent  or  unlimited  influence 
thought  of  by  the  writer. 

(5)  His  treatment  rests  on  the  supposition,  really,  that 
words  originate  with  learned,  deeply-metaphysical  schol- 
ars, with  these  abstruse  and  remote  meanings  implied. 
Nothing  is  further  from  the  facts.  Word-building  is  a 
vastly  different  process. 

2.  Pindar,  the  Greek  poet,  is  the  first  writer  in  the 
world  yet  found  who  uses  it,  and  he  but  once,  and  in  a 
metaphorical  sense,  pointing  to  the  use  of  the  word 
for  a  great  while  before  liis  day.  Describing  ^'the  impo- 
tent malice '^  and  abuse  of  his  enemies  who  aspersed  his 
fair  fame  he  said,  "For,  as  when  the  rest  of  the  net  is 
toiling  deep  in  the  sea,  I  am  as  a  cork  above  the  net,  un- 
baptized  by  [the  waves]  of  the  sea " — ad'a-rjoro?  drxi  .  . 
aA,aa^.  Scholiast,  "  salis  undis.'^  That  is,  I  am  as  sere 
unharmed  by  your  raging  malice  and  abusive  epithets  ix>. 
the  cork  is  above  the  stormy  and  foaming  billows.  The 
waves  of  malice — i.  e.  your  abusive  epithets — fall  harm- 
lessly upon  me,  do  not  overwhelm  me.  The  Greeks,  the 
Latins,  and  other  nations  constantly  use  the  word  sprinkle 


224  BAPTISM. 

and  pour  for  this  very  idea,  but  they  never  use  immerse. 
So  we  in  English  say,  "aspersion,"  "asperse"  one's  char- 
acter, "foul  aspersion,"  for  slander,  abuse.  Shakspeare 
uses  "bespatter"  often  for  the  same,  as  well  as  Bunyan, 
"bespatter  a  man,"*  complaining  of  their  abuses  and 
defamations.  Taylor,  Baptist  historian,  says,  "To  vindi- 
cate them  from  those  aspersions." f  Shakspeare,  "I  was 
never  so  bethumped  witli  words,"  etc.  "These  haughty 
words  bespatter  me  like  roaring  cannon-shot."  Often  in 
Arabic  a  word  meaning  eloquent  means  to  pour,  sprinkle. 
The  first  occurrence,  then,  is  no  case  of  immersion  nor 
dipping,  but  the  application  of  the  baptizing  element  to 
the  subject  coming  upon  him,  and  he  as  unharmed  by  it 
as  the  cork  on  the  waves  of  the  sea;  every  effort  of  the 
wave  to  fall  upon,  drench,  or  overwhelm  him  fails. 

3.  Aristophanes,  the  poet,  450  years  before  Christ, 
uses  it  once.  He  uses  it  in  a  metaphorical  sense  thus, 
"For  he  is  praised,"  says  he,  "because  he  baptized  (^Sd-ir- 
ruTvj,  ehaptisen)  the  stewards,"  etc.  It  is  here  used  in  the 
sense  of  bespatter  with  epithets  or  words,  abuse,  traduce, 
especially  ridicule.  There  is  no  immersion  or  dipping 
here.  To  sprinkle  any  one  with  epithets  or  with  praise 
was  a  common  expression.  The  Greeks  had  this  as  a  com- 
mon saying,  "To  sprinkle  any  one  with  song,"  "sprinkle 
any  one  with  eulogies."  %  In  the  above  cases  the  stronger 
form  is  used — pour  ridicule  upon,  overwhelm  with  words. 

4.  Plato,  the  great  philosopher,  born  b.  c.  429,  is  the 
first  prose-writer  that  uses  the  word.  It  occurs  three 
times  in  his  writings,  rendered  "overwhelm"  every  time 
by  Conant,  A.  Campbell,  Gale,  and  all   other  parties  we 

*  Banyan's  Differences  about  Baptism,  complete  works,  page  842. 

t  Hist.  Baptisttjj  page  330,  by  Benedict. 

X  'Vaiveiv,  Tiva  vjuvcj—palveiv  h?Myia(;  nva;  (Pindar,  viii,  81,  etc.). 


ANCIENT   CRITICISMS — ERRORS.  225 

suppose.  It  is  metaphorically  used  each  time.  "Speak- 
ing of  young  Cleinias,  confounded  with  the  sophistical 
questions  and  subtilties  of  the  professional  disputants,  he 
says,  ^And  I,  perceiving  that  the  youth  was  overwhelmed 
— baptized — wishing  to  give  him  a  respite.^"  Questions 
asked  confusing  the  boy  is  not  putting  the  boy  into  the 
questions,  but  the  questions  to  him.  The  boy  is  not 
poured  on  the  questions,  but  the  questions  are  poured  on 
to  him  so  fast  that  he  is  confused,  overwhelmed  by 
them.  By  the  way,  whence  that  word  confuse?*  Alex- 
ander was  "  overwhelmed — baptized — with  wine.'' 

Plato  again  says,  "For  I  myself  am  one  of  those  who 
yesterday  were  overwhelmed — baptized,''  alluding  to  the 
drinking  of  wine.f  Conant  says,  "In  this  use  the  Greek 
word  corresponds  to  the  English  drench"  (p.  70).  No 
dip,  no  immerse;  yet — 

5.  Alcibiades,  B.C.  400,  w4io  comes  next,  was  a  poet,  and 
uses  it  metaphorically,  as  have  all  who  as  yet  used  it.  In 
an  epigram  on  the  comic  poet  Eupolis,  occasioned  by  the 
offensive  allusions  in  a  play  by  him  called  Baptce — those 
who  stained,  colored — metaphorically,  those  who  bespat- 
tered with  billingsgate — "  You  besprinkled  (fid-nreq,  baptes) 
me  in  your  plays  [i.  e.  with  words  of  abuse] ;  but  I  will 
destroy  thee  with  streams  more  bitter,  baptizing  thee  with 
waves  of  the  sea."  J  I  will  pour  upon  you  a  torrent  of 
invective;  I  will  pour  bitterest  streams  of  abuse  ujion 
you;  as  with  the  waves  of  a  sea  I  will  overwhelm  you. 
Later  by  centuries  Plutarch  speaks  of  one  "  baptized  by 
[excessive  labors]  falling  upon  him — oTrepgaUuufft,  huper- 
ballousi."     He   drew  the   comparison    from  "a  moderate 

*  Enthydermus,  chap,  vii ;  Conant,  p.  66. 
t  Conant,  pp.  69,  70. 
t  See  the  Greek,  Conant,  p.  29. 
15 


22G  BAPTISM. 

amount  of  water/^  nourishing  plants;  but  too  much  choked. 
There  is  no  dip,  no  immerse  yet;  but  invariably  the  appli- 
cation of  the  baptizing  element  to  the  subjec.t. 

BAPTIDZO — PRIMARY   MEANING. 

A  striking  instance  of  the  twofold  fact  that  a  word 
may  primarily  mean  to  sprinkle  or  pour  and  then  to  over- 
whelm, flood,  inundate,  and  also  be  used  to  express  a  tor- 
rent of  words  poured  upon  one,  aspersion,  abuse,  is  found 
in  Athseneus:  '^  You  seem  to  me,  O  guests,  to  be  strangely 
flooded  —  ■/.arr^'^rXrfffOo.t,  kataentlaesthai,  overwhelmed  with 
vehement  words,  while  also  waiting  to  be  overwhelmed — 
ftsSaTtrcaOat,  hehaptlsthai ,  baptized — with  undiluted  wine.'^ 

Here  the  parties  are  ^^overwhelmed"  w^th  vehement 
words,  overwhelmed  with  wine.  The  two  words  are  used 
in  the  same  sense.  Dr.  Conant  renders  kataentlaesthai 
here  ^'  flooded  " — a  strong  phrase  for  overwhelm.  But  this 
word  used  in  the  same  sense  as  haptidzo  liere  primarily 
applies  to  affusion,  means  generally  to  sprinkle,  to  pour. 
Passow,  Pape,  Rost,  Palm,  Stephens  all  render  it  generally 
by  sprinkle  and  pour.'-^  Dunbar  renders  it  "  To  pour  upon, 
to  bathe  with  water,  ...  to  soothe  with  eloquence,  to 
overwhelm  with  or  pour  out  ridicule  upon  one."  Liddell 
&  Scott:  ''To  pour  upon  or  over;  hence,  metaphorically, 
to  pour  a  flood  of  words  over  one,  to  bathe,  to  steep,, 
foment." 

Here  is  a  word  that  primarily  applies  to  affusion  by 
agreement  of  all  authorities  that  is  used  by  the  Greeks  in 
the  same  sense  with  haptidzo — -just  as  it  is  often  used.  In 
Aristophanes,  Demosthenes,  and  in  Plutarch  in  its  noun 

*Pape:  Dariibergiessenr^rschutten,  etc.  Passow:  Same,  and  darub- 
erausgies>cn,  fihersohnttpn,  lihorbaiifen. 


ANCIENT   CRITICISMS — ERRORS.  227 

form,  pluno,  to  rain,  pour,  sprinkle,  then  to  wash,  means 
"to  abuse,  revile,  reproach."* 

6.  Demosthenes,  born  B.C.  385,  next  uses  it  once,  if  he 
be  the  author  of  the  speech  attributed  to  him.  He  uses  it 
greatly  strengthened  by  the  preposition  dta,  dia,  thus: 
"  Not  the  speakers — public  declaimers — for  they  knew  how 
to  baptize  with  him — Philip '^ — dta^a-rc^sffOat — diabaptid- 
zesthai — toutcd,  with  this  man.  Here  it  "is  used  metaphor- 
ically, and  the  sense  is,  for  these  know  how  to  match  him 
in  foul  language,''  says  Dr.  Conant,  p.  77;  but  when  he 
makes  it  "souse"  it  is  ridiculous.  That  figure  so  common 
to  the  Greek  language,  as  well  as  the  English,  of  bespatter- 
ing, aspersing  with  foul  words,  and  when  gifted  in  speech, 
"pour  out  a  torrent  of  words;"  common  to  the  Latin, 
very,  and  to  the  Arabic,  alone  makes  sense  and  is  true. 
In  a  past  chapter  the  reader  found  many  cases  of  this  in 
the  foot-notes,  where  words  for  sprinkle  and  pour  coming 
to  mean  overwhelm,  etc.  were  given.  Consult  Graves- 
Ditzler  Debate,  pp.  397-8,  et  seq. 

7.  Aristotle,  born  B.C.  384,  uses  it  once  only  in  all 
his  writings.  He  is  the  first  writer  known  to  use  it  liter- 
ally. All  as  yet  used  it  metaphorically;  he  uses  it  "in 
the  literal,  physical  sense,"  as  Conant  would  say.  Being 
the  most  learned  and  scientific  and  accurate  Greek  who 
ever  lived,  having  the  most  complete  and  accurate  scholar- 
ship of  all  Greeks  and  careful  in  his  use  of  terms,  and  the 
first  Ave  have  that  uses  it  literally,  we  must  notice  closely 
his  use  of  it,  and  thereby  get  all  the  light  we  can.  He 
says,  "They  say  that  the  Phoenicians  who  inhabit  the  so- 
called  Gadera,  sailing  four  days  outside  of  the  Pillars  of 
Hercules  with  an  east  wind,  come  to  certain  places  full  of 
rushes  and  sea-w^eed,  which,  when  it  is  ebb-tide,  are  not 

•■•■See  Pickering's  Revised  Greek  Lexicon,  1840.  etc. 


228  BAPTISM. 

overflowed — irq  (ia-riZeffOat^  mae  haptidzesthai,  but  at  full  tide 
are  overflowed — xaxaAluZtaOai^  hataldudzesthai.^^  *    Notice — 

1.  The  element  comes  upon  the  baptized  object.  The 
land  is  not  dipped — it  does  not  penetrate  into  the  water, 
nor  sink  into  it,  is  not  immersed,  but  overflowed  by  the 
rushing  water. 

2.  It  is  equivalent  to  the  word  xaraxXoXio^  hatahludzo. 
Aristotle,  instead  of  using  either  word  twice  so  closely 
for  the  same  fact,  uses  baptidzo  for  it  first,  then  hataUudzo. 
Kataldudzo  is  compounded  of  the  preposition  hata,  to 
strengthen  the  verb,  and  khidzo.  See  Chapter  XIII,  p.  138. 
Its  primary  meaning  is  to  bedash,  sprinkle,  infuse  water. 
The  word  clyster  is  the  noun  of  the  verb,  often  occurring 
in  Greek.  The  ancient  lexicographers  have  peri-kludzo 
for  sprinkle,  besprinkle,  bedash  with  water.  Yet  it  comes 
to  apply  to  a  more  copious  use  of  it,  but  always  with 
the  water,  the  active  agent,  not  passive — not  penetrated 
by  the  object,  but  falling  upon  the  object.  It  often  means 
to  wash  also.  Hence  the  greatest  of  Greek  scholars  in  the 
golden  age  of  Grecian  intellect,  using  baptidzo  interchange- 
ably with  such  a  word,  crushes  the  immersion  theory  to 
atoms,  and  shows  that  a  word  primarily  meaning  to  sprin- 
kle or  bedash  with  water  is  the  equivalent  of  baptidzo. 
It  was  centuries  after  this  that  Theophylact,  the  Greek, 
used  the  same  word,  kataldudzo,  to  express  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.    See  Conant,  Ex.  199,  p.  113. 

3.  Baptidzo  does  mean,  often  means,  ^^to  overflow.'' 
A.  Campbell,  Prof.  Ripley  (Baptist),  Swartz,  M.  Stu- 
art render  it  overflow.  Conant  renders  its  equivalent 
"  overflow ''  in  the  same  line,  but  falsely  renders  baptidzo, 

*  Aristotle,  De  Mirabil.  Auscultat,  136;  Conant,  3.  Dr.  Conant 
shamefully  translates  the  one  immerse,  the  other,  for  exactly  the  same 
thing,  overflow.     A.  Campbell  was  more  candid. 


AKCIENT   CEITICISMS — EREOKS.  229 

Yet  (p.  88),  summing  up,  he  renders  it  "  overflows/^  allud- 
ing to  this  case.  But  no  word  either  primarily  meaning 
immerse — if  such  a  word  exists — or  that  properly  means 
immerse,  with  no  other  primary  meaning  implying  affu- 
sion, can  be  found  that  means  to  "  overflow."  The  three 
Hebrew  words  for  immerse,  tabha,  kaphas,  shakha;  the 
six  or  eight  Arabic  words  elsewhere  given ;  Persic,  Syriac, 
^thiopic ;  mergo,  im-,  de-,  and  sub-mergoy  in  Latin ;  the 
Greek  buthidzOj  kataduo,  pontidzo,  dupto  (dip),  katapon- 
tidzo,  immerse,  never  mean  to  overflow ;  neither  the  Ger- 
man sinken,  taucheUy  ein,  and  undertauchen.  As  "over- 
flow" can  not  come  from  dip  or  immerse,  yet  does  come 
to  be  a  derived  meaning  and  a  liteeal  meaning  of  bap- 
tidzoj  immerse  or  dip  can  not  be  the  primary  meaning  of 
baptidzo. 

We  have  now  traced  every  occurrence  of  baptidzo  from 
its  appearance  in  literature  by  Pindar,  five  hundred  and 
twenty-two  years  before  Christ,  to  Aristotle — covering  one 
hundred  and  thirty-eight  years — dating  the  birth  of  each. 
We  are  giving  the  facts  first ;  the  philology  is  yet  to  ap- 
pear more  fully.     Note — 

(1)  For  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  years  it  occurs 
only  in  a  metaphorical  sense. 

(2)  During  all  these  years  it  always  implied  affusion, 
application  of  the  baptizing  element,  never  implying  the 
application  or  sinking  of  the  object  into  the  element. 

(3)  The  first  time  in  which  it  occurs  in  a  literal  sense 
it  is  the  application  of  the  water  to  the  object  baptized,  by 
the  greatest  of  all  Greek  scholars. 

(4)  It  is  used  by  him  as  equivalent  to  a  word  that  pri- 
marily means  to  bedash  or  sprinkle  with  water,  as  when 
it  is  sprinkled  suddenly  or  forcibly  in  the  face  or  on  any 
part  of  the  body.     That  is  its  most  common  use. 


230  BAPTISM. 

4.  The  next  occLirrence  is  in  Eubuliis,  a  Greek  comic 
writer,  about  B.C.  380.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  in  what 
sense  he  uses  it:  '^Who  now  the  fourth  day  is  baptized, 
leading  the  famished  life  of  a  Avretched  mullet,''  a  notedly 
hungry,  always  empty  fish,  according  to  fable.  Whether 
the  person  was  for  the  fourth  day  clinging  to  some  part 
of  the  wrecked  vessel,  starving  for  three  days,  bap- 
tized often  by  the  waves  dashing  upon  him,  we  can  not 
say  unless  we  had  more  of  "the  fragment."  It  points 
that  way  as  far  as  it  goes.  There  is  but  the  one  oc- 
currence. 

The  quotation  "falsely  attributed  to  Heraclides  Pon- 
ticus''  in  this  century  belongs  to  a  much  later  date.  See 
Conant,  p.  34. 

5.  Evenus  of  Paros*  is  the  next,  B.C.  250,  Epigram: 
"  If  [Bacchus]  breathe  strongly,  it  hinders  love — i.  e.  if  a 
man  is  completely  intoxicated,  love's  amours  are  defeated; 
for  he  [Bacchus]  baptizes  with  a  sleep  near  to  death.^f 
"Here  is  the  metaphorical  sense  of  the  word,"  says  Stu- 
art, who  renders  it  "overwhelms."  From  Pindar  to  this 
poet  tw^o  hundred  and  seventy-two  years  intervene,  yet 
haptidzo  never  yet  occurs  meaning  to  dip  or  immerse. 
Polybius,  born  B.C.  203  or  205,  comes  next — a  prose-writer. 
From  the  times  of  Pindar  to  those  of  Polybius  sum  up 
three  hundred  and  seventeen  to  three  hundred  and  nine- 
teen years.  During  all  these  stormy  and  changy  times 
baptidzo  never  had  been  used  for  dip,  for  plunge,  for  im- 
merse, but  always  points  infallibly  to  affusion. 

Baptidzo   may  have   been    in   use   hundreds   of  years 

*  Evenus,  xv,  in  Jacob's  Anthol.,  p.  99 ;  M.  Stuart,  p.  61 ;  Conant, 
p.  58. 

t  Ban-Ti^ei  6'  vttvc) — not,  as  nearly  five  hundred  years  later  Clem.  Alex, 
has  it,  hg  vttvov,  into  sleep. 


ANCIENT    CRITICISMS ERKOES.  231 

before  we  meet  with  it  in  the  literature  that  has  survived 
the  waste  of  ages,  but  in  its  earliest  use  as  know^n  to  us 
we  have  enough  to  show  its  primary  meaning  aside  from 
the  facts  brought  out  on  hapto.  Among  its  prevailing 
classic  meanings  are  intoxicate,  overwhelm,  overflow,  pour 
over  or  upon,  of  words,  then  the  effects  of  wine,  ques- 
tions, water.  We  know  that  none  of  these  meanings  can 
be  derived  from  dip  or  immerse.  That  has  been  perfectly 
tested.  They  are  constantly  in  all  languages  derived 
from  words  primarily  meaning  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to 
moisten,  bedew,  etc.  All  the  facts  connected  with  bapto 
point  out  the  same  results. 


232  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
Classical  Usage — Summary  of  Facts. 

Immersionists  hold  that  the  prevailing  meaning  of  a 
Avord  is  its  primary  meaning,  regarding  not  earlier  occur- 
rences at  all,  ignoring  all  the  laws  of  science  and  word- 
building,  development  of  language.  But  is  immerse — 
English,  sink — or  dip  the  prevailing  meaning  of  baptidzo 
even  in  the  classics  ?  We  will  test  the  matter  by  them- 
selves. 

1.  T.  J.  Conant,  D.D.,  renders  baptidzo  out  of  sixty- 
three  consecutive  occurrences — 

(1)  ^^ Whelm''  forty-five  times;  '^overwhelm''  eight 
times^fifty-three  times;  while  in  those  sixty-three  con- 
secutive occurrences  he  does  not  render  it  dip,  the  thing 
they  do  in  baptism,  once  even,  and  "immerse"  only  ten 
times! 

(2)  After  p.  7e3,  baptidzo  is  compounded  with  preposi- 
tions and  does  not  apply  properly.  All  the  cases  of  bap- 
tidzo simply,  then,  are  one  hundred  and  forty-one,  of 
which  only  seven  times  does  he  render  it  dip ;  i.  e.  one 
hundred  and  thirty-four  against  seven  in  his  favor. 

(3)  These  seven  cases  are  not  correctly  rendered. 

(4)  Out  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty-one  times,  it  is 
rendered  by  him  immerse  only  thirty-five  times,  making 
one  hundred  and  six  against  thirty-five  for  immerse. 

(5)  These  are  partly  false  renderings,  as  Aristotle  on 
the  "overflowing''  of  the  land,  etc. 


CLASSICAL   USAGE — SUMMARY    OF    FACTS.  233 

(6)  Not  one  of  them  has  the  meaning;  in  not  one  of 
the  one  hundred  and  forty-one  cases  does  baptidzo  describe 
or  apply  to  the  action  that  constitutes  their  baptism. 

(7)  Conant  renders  baptidzo  by  fourteen  diiferent  words, 
giving  it  fourteen  definitions!  Yet  they  say  "there  is 
absolutely  no  word  in  the  Greek  language  of  more  uni- 
vocal  sense  than  the  Avord  baptize"  (Address  by  Dr. 
Eaton,  bound  up  in  Conant's  work).  Surely  this  was 
meant  for  a  huge  joke. 

(8)  He  only  finds  thirty  occurrences  of  the  word  before 
the  birth  of  Christ  that  he  can  date,  allowing  a  margin 
for  that  number.     These  he  renders — 

(9)  One  "dip''  out  of  the  thirty;  i.  e.  twenty-nine 
against  one  for  "dip.'' 

(10)  Only  thirteen  "immersions;"  that  is,  seventeen 
against  thirteen. 

(11)  Several  of  these,  as  Aristotle's,  are  wrong,  leaving 
dip  clear  out,  and  immerse  maimed  forever. 

2.  Dr.  Gale,  the  great  Baptist  of  a  former  century,  thus 
renders  it:  "Dipped  in"  once;  "dip,"  three  times;  "laid 
under,"  once  ;  "  over  head  and  ears,"  once — a  peculiar  verb, 
no  doubt,  very  "  univocal " ;  "  drowned,"  one  time ; 
"  drowns  and  overwhelms,"  once ;  "  sink,"  ten  times ; 
"  immerse,"  three ;  i.  e.  eighteen  against  three  for  im- 
merse ;  eighteen  against  three  for  "  dip,"  or  twenty-one 
versus  one  "  dip  in." 

3.  M.  Stuart,  when  summing  up  for  immerse,  a  Con- 
gregationalist  writing  by  request  of  Baptists,  of  forty-one 
cases  it  is — 

(1)  One  "  dip,"  six  "  plunge,"  seven  "  sink,"  one  "  im- 
merge,"  three  "  immerse,"  one  "  overflow,"  twenty-two 
"overwhelm."     That  is — 

(2)  Forty  against  one  "  dip,"  or. 


234  BAPTISM. 

(3)  Thirty-eight  against  three  immerse ! 

(4)  Twenty-three  cases  "  overflow  '^  and  "overwhelm," 
of  application  of  the  baptizing  element  to  the  object, 
against  one  '^  dip,"  the  word  expressive  of  the  baptism  of 
our  opponents.  What  is  the  prevailing  meaning?  Is  it 
the  primitive  ? 

4.  Prof  J.  M.  Pendleton,  D.D,*  out  of  twenty-two 
occurrences  renders  it — 

(1)  Plunge,  eight  times;  dip,  one;  sink,  five;  overflow, 
one;  immerse,  two;  overwhelm,  five;  i.  e. 

(2)  Twenty  against  two  for  immerse — ten  to  one  against 
immerse ! 

(3)  Twenty-one  against  one  for  dip!! 

(4)  "Overflow"  and  "overwhelm,"  six  times,  pointing 
to  affusion,  against  one  for  "  dip."  Does  the  prevailing 
meaning  indicate  the  i)rimary? 

5.  A.  Campbell  shall  be  heard  from.  In  Christian 
Baptism,  his  greatest  work,  he  renders  baptidzo: 

(1)  Sink,  ten  times;  immerse,  three;  overflow,  one; 
dip,  not  at  all;  "overwhelm,"  ten  times;  i.  e. 

(2)  Twenty-one  against  three  for  immerse. 

(3)  Twenty-four  against  not  one  for  "  dip!  " 

(4)  "Overflow"  and  "overwhelm"  eleven  times  against 
no  dip — all  pointing  to  afl'usion. 

(5)  He  gives  through  his  renderings,  version,  and  quo- 
tations introduced,  leaving  out  the  parts  he  does  not  like, 
twenty  different  renderings  to  baptidzo. 

Surely  it  is  a  simple  word — "  univocal." 

CLASSICS — SUMMARY   OF   FACTS. 

6.  Ingham,  later  than  Conant,  in  his  large  work, 
Hand-book  on  Baptism,  London,  though  he  had  A.  Camp- 

*  "  Why  I  am  a  Baptist,"  from  pages  97  to  100. 


CLASSICAL   USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  235 

bell,  Carson,  Gale,  Conaiit,  Booth,  etc.  before  him,  gives 
us  this  result :  Omitting  the  Bible  and  Apocrypha  cases, 
as  being  the  ones  in  dispute  to  be  determined — "sub- 
merge," one;  '^play  the  immersing  match,"  one;  i.  e. 
"dip,"  one.  He  renders  it  "overwhelm"  fifty  times  out 
of  one  hundred  and  sixty-nine  cases.  Here  Ave  have  it 
meaning  "overwhelm"  fifty  times  to  dip  once,  and  one 
hundred  and  sixty-eight  to  one  dip!  "Immerse"  is  his 
favorite  rendering.  "It  always  means  to  dip" — means 
"nothing  else" — yet  means  to  dip  only  one  time  in  all  its 
occurrences  through  fifteen  hundred  years! 

7.  Dr.  Carson  renders  it  "immerse"  three  times; 
"sink,"  seven  times;  "plunge,"  two  times;  "dip,"  three 
times;  "baptize,"  fourteen  times;  "put  into,"  one  time; 
"drown,"  one  time — in  all  thirty-one  proof-texts.  Here 
we  have  twenty-eight  against  three  for  "  immerse."  We 
have  twenty-eight  against  three  for  dip ;  twenty-nine  against 
two  for  plunge.     Yet  it  "always  means  to  dip" ! 

If  I  have  counted  accurately,  the  sum  of  all  is  four 
hundred  and  fifty-seven  against  eighteen  for  dip  !  By  the 
unanimous  renderings  of  the  great  masters  themselves  we 
have  haptidzo  meaning  something  else  over  twenty-five 
times  to  every  one  time  it  means  dip — over  twenty -five 
against  one ! 

With  the  facts  from  the  classics  and  these  renderings, 
we  are  prepared  to  test  the  matter  by  the  laws  of  language. 
These  renderings  are  far  more  valuable  than  the  render- 
ings of  lexicons,  because,  first,  these  men,  though  far  less 
learned  in  Greek  than  the  lexicographers,  were  far  more 
learned  in  the  literature  of  this  word.  A  lexicographer 
can  not  afibrd  to  devote  but  a  few  moments  to  the  study 
of  each  word,  all  being  equally  important  to  him.  But 
these  men  devoted  years  to  this  one  word ;  second,  they 


236  BAPTISM. 

are  its  special  friends.  They  have  a  theory  to  support, 
and  many  of  them  a  very  restricted,  and,  as  some  think, 
an  intolerant,  proscriptive  theory,  that  unchurches  millions 
of  the  most  pious  of  God's  people,  and  they  start  out  with 
the  assumption  that  bapiidzo  in  the  classics  describes  the 
exact  action  of  their  rite — that  it  always  means  to  dip. 

Dip  always  implies  withdrawal  to  the  extent  of  pene- 
tration. Immerse  is  sink,  sink  in,  with  no  withdrawal 
implied. 

1.  We  liave  seen  that  all  the  earliest  uses  of  baptidzo 
were  in  support  of  aifusion.  Yet  in  Pindar,  Aristophanes, 
Alcibiades,  Evenus,  poets  all,  it  is  applied  to  aspersing 
people  with  abusive  epithets,  as  well  as  in  Demosthenes. 
But  nothing  is  more  common  to  Greeks,  Latins,  He- 
brews,* Arabs,  Germans,  Americans,  and  English  than 
this  habit;  and  words  meaning  to  pour,  to  sprinkle  espe- 
cially, are  most  common,  while  immerse  is  not  so  used  at 
all.  Hence  these  facts  establish  sprinkle  as  the  primary 
meaning  of  baptidzo. 

2.  The  Hebrew  words  for  immerse,  the  Greek  (often 
repeated  by  us),  hatadiio,  etc.,  the  Latin  mergoj  im-,  de-,  and 
sub-mergo,  never  mean,  are  never  employed  for  to  abuse 
or  sprinkle,  bespatter  one  with  epithets  or  words ;  hence 
baptidzo  could  not  have  primarily  meant  immerse,  merse, 
or  dip,  since  the  above  meanings  can  not  be  derived  there- 
from. 

3.  Baptidzo  means,  in  the  oldest  of  all  prose-writers 
known  to  employ  it,  Plato,  to  ^^  overwhelm,"  so  rendered 
by  all  immersion  authors  and  by  the  lexicons,  being  used 
metaphorically  by  Plato,  born   B.C.    429.      But   ^'over- 

••■See  also  Deuteronomy  xxxii,  2:  "My  doctrine  shall  drop  as  the 
rain,  my  speech  shall  distill  as  the  dew,  as  the  small  rain  upon  the  tender 
herb,  and  as  the  showers  upon  the  grass." 


CLASSICAL   USAGE — SUMMARY  OF   FACTS.  237 

whelm"  can  not  be  derived  from  dip,  as  a  proper  word,  or 
immerse,  sink.  Philologically  it  is  absurd.  Baptidzo  does 
come  to  mean  *'to  overwhelm,'^  often.  Overwlielm  can 
not  come  from  dip;  hence  dip  could  not  have  been  the 
primary  meaning  of  baptidzo;  nor  from  immerse;  hence  it 
could  not  have  been  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word. 
We  never  apply  '^  dip "  to  a  case  effected  by  overwhelm- 
ing. 

4.  Dr.  Conant  renders  baptidzo  "whelm''  forty-five 
times  between  pages  43  and  72.  But  "whelm''  can  not 
be  a  meaning  derived  from  dip,  neither  from  immerse; 
hence  neither  of  those  words  expresses  the  original  mean- 
ing of  baptidzo. 

5.  The  earliest  occurrence  of  baptidzo  in  a  literal 
sense  is  in  Aristotle,  and  means  literally  "  to  overflow." 
But  "  overflow"  never  is  derived  from  a  word  that  prima- 
rily or  properly  means  to  dip,  nor  from  immerse.  Neither 
dip  nor  immerse  was  the  primary  meaning  of  baptidzo, 

6.  Baptidzo  often  means  to  "  intoxicate,"  "  make 
drunk."  Dip  and  immerse  do  not  mean  to  intoxicate,  it 
is  never  derived  from  such  primaries;  therefore  they  never 
could  have  been  primary  meanings  of  baptidzo.  Neither 
immerse — in  Hebrew,  Arabic,  Persic,  ^thiopic,  Syriac, 
Greek,  Latin,  German,  nor  English,  neither  in  tongues 
Aryan  nor  Semitic — nor  dip  ever  comes  to  mean  to  make 
drunk.  Mergo  rarely  applies  to  the  effect  of  wine,  to  sink 
under  its  effects. 

7.  Dip  is  urged  by  all  immersionists  as  a  leading  mean- 
ing of  baptidzo.  But  dip  never  can  be  derived  from  im- 
merse; they  as  wholes  imply  opposites  in  action.  Hence, 
if  dip  be  a  meaning,  the  word  never  could  have  primarily 
meant  immerse. 

8.  Immersionists,  such   as   Drs.    Gale,   Ingham,  Cox, 


238  BAPTISM. 

Mell,  Halley  (and  Conant  gives  many  proofs),  acknowl- 
edge that  bapiidzo  and  baptisma  are  used  by  Greeks  where 
the  baptism  is  effected  by  " superfusion '^ — i.e.  pouring 
upon.  But  "dipping"  can  not  be  so  accomplished,  nor 
can  "  superfusion "  be  derived  from  dip,  much  less  from 
immerse.  Hence  dip  and  immerse  never  were  primary 
meanings  of  baptldzo. 

9.  Baptkho  means  "to  wash."  All  are  agreed  here.* 
The  immersionists  all  make  it  the  effect  of  dipping  in 
water — that  it  is  a  figurative  or  derived  meaning.     But — 

(1)  Immerse  never  means  to  wash  in  any  language  on 
earth.  It  is  never  a  meaning  by  figure  or  by  fact,  if  the 
proper  words  for  immerse  in  Greek,  Latin,  Hebrew,  or 
English.  Mergo,  immergo,  demergOy  submergo,  the  words 
themselves,  never  mean  wash.  Neither  of  the  six  or 
eiglit  Arabic  words  given  that  properly  and  strictly 
mean  to  immerse,  means  to  wash.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  GfYeok  pontidzo^  diuiai,  buthidzo,  kata-pontidzo,  kataduo, 
all  meaning  definitely  to  immerse,  to  sink,  sink  in.  The 
English  sink,  the  German  slnken,  eintauchen,  underfauchen, 
do  not  mean  to  wash,  nor  cleanse,  no  more  than  dip, 
tunken,  tauchen,  and  the  Greek  dupto,  dip,  kolumbao,  dip, 
dive,  stand  in  the  same  list. 

(2)  Neither  has  immerse  any  necessary  or  philological 
relation  or  necessary  connection  with  wash,  as  things  are 
most  generally  washed  in  nature  by  the  water  coming  in 
contact  with  them,  and  by  infinite  odds  mostly  by  sprink- 
ling and  pouring.  Every  leaf,  herb,  tree,  spear  of  grass, 
rock,  hill,  house,  fence,  all  things  in  nature  are  constantly 
washed,  cleansed  from  soiling,  defiling  elements  by  the  rain. 

(3)  Indeed  immerse  as  often  applies  to  things  that  de- 

"■••  See  proofs  under  Chapter  VII  on  the  Laver,  and  see  Index — 
Wash. 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  239 

file,  corrupt,  soil,  as  to  purifying  elements.  Things  are 
immersed  in  filth,  mud,  hog-styes,  filthy  pools,  stencliy 
vats,  sinks  of  all  kinds. 

(4)  Nay,  merely  dipping  or  immersing  in  clear  water 
does  not  necessarily  Avash  or  cleanse,  does  not  at  all. 
Merely  dip  a  dirty  garment  in  clear  water  and  you  will 
make  poor  headway  in  washing  it,  especially  by  one  single 
dip. 

10.  Again  J  bajjtidzo  meant  wash  two  hundred  and  eighty- 
three  years  before  Christ,  as  2  Kings  v,  10,  14,  shows. 
It  was  interchanged  with  louo  and  its  noun  lutron,  wash- 
ing, cleansing,  in  the  Apocrypha  two  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  years  before  Christ,  we  know,  and  most  likely  much 
earlier.  It  was  interchanged  with  kludzo,  wash,  besprinkle, 
etc.,  in  the  Apocrypha  likewise.  But  baptidzo  never  took 
on  the  meaning  of  immerse  till  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ — about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  Christ — in  Poly  bins,  who  was  born  two  hundred 
and  three  to  two  hundred  and  five  years  before  Christ. 
That  was  a  rare  meaning,  though,  and  continued  as  a  mi- 
nority meaning,  as  the  immersionist  renderings  show.  No 
lexicon  gives  immerse  as  a  meaning  of  baptidzo  supported 
by  an  authority  earlier  than  Polybius.  Most  of  them  cite 
Plutarch,  long  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  as  the  first,  some 
Diodorus  Siculus,  later  than  Polybius.  We  have  seen 
that  Polybius,  Plutarch,  and  Diodorus  Siculus  wrote  after 
the  great  breakdown  and  change  in  the  Greek  language 
also. 

Wash,  therefore,  antedates  immerse  as  a  meaning  of 
baptidzo  from  at  least  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  to  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  if  not  fully  three  hundred  years. 
Hence  it  is  impossible  that  wash  or  cleanse  should  be  de- 
rived from  immerse  as  a  meaning  of  baptidzo. 


240  BAPTISM. 

11.  Again,  baptidzo  means  to  '^ overflow^'  in  Aristotle, 
which  was  one  hundred  and  seventy-nine  years  before  it 
came  to  mean  "immerse.^'  Hence  immerse  can  not  be  an 
early,  not  to  say  primary,  meaning  of  baptidzo. 

12.  Of  all  the  words  properly  meaning  to  immerse  in 
Hebrew,  tahha,  kaphash,  shapo  ;  eight  in  Arabic  extensively 
used,  gamara,  gamasa,  atta,  etc. ;  in  Persic,  ghuta;  ^thiopic, 
maah,  maba;  in  Greek,  buthidzo,  kataduoj  etc.,  etc.;  dupto, 
dip,  immergo,  etc.  in  Latin,  none  of  these  proper  words  for 
immerse  ever  mean  to  abuse,  slander,  defame,  simply  be- 
cause asperse,  pour  upon,  are  not  in  their  primaries  nor  in 
them  any  where. 

13.  While  these  facts  infallibly  prove  that  neither  dip 
nor  immerse  nor  plunge  was  the  primitive  meaning  of 
baptidzo  J  they  all  point  out  sprinkling  as  that  meaning. 
In  addition  to  these  facts  another  great  truth  settles  the 
question : 

All  the  meanings  belonging  or  claimed  to  belong  to 
baptidzo  in  classic  or  New  Testament  and  apocryphal 
Greek  do  constantly  belong  to  a  great  number  of  words  in 
Greek,  Latin,  Hebrew,  Arabic,  etc.  that  do  by  agreement 
of  all  authorities  belong  to  words  that  primarily  mean  to 
sprinkle,  to  others  that  primarily  mean  to  moisten  where 
it  is  effected  by  sprinkling,  to  bedew,  to  wet,  to  rain.  On 
the  contrary,  in  no  instance  does  a  word  in  these  languages 
that  properly  means  to  immerse  or  primarily  to  sink, 
plunge,  or  dip  have  the  meanings  that  belong  either  in  the 
classics  or  New  Testament  and  apocryphal  Greek  to 
baj)tidzo. 

14.  In  Chapters  XII  and  XIII  we  have  seen  over  fifty 
words  that  illustrate  this — words  not  used  for  baptism  in 
the  Bible.  They  are  in  Latin,  such  as  tlngOj  from  Greek 
tengo  (or  tenggo,  rsyya)),  madeo,  madefacio,   perfundo,  as- 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMAfARY  OF    FACTS.  241 

pergOj  taking  on  more  or  less  the  meanings  of  bapto  and 
leading  ones  of  baptidzo;  Greek  deuo,  brechoj  kludzo,  kat- 
antleo;  a  host  of  Semitic  words,  many  beginning  with 
sprinkle,  mean  to  wet,  cleanse,  pour,  wash,  saturate,  intox- 
icate, dip,  immerse.  In  no  instance  is  the  law  reversed. 
From  sprinkle  to  immerse  we  saw  the  way  was  natural, 
historic,  constant.  Words  meaning  to  bedew,  moisten 
take  on  stronger  meanings  and  come  to  mean  soak,  intox- 
icate, saturate,  dye,  dip,  immerse.  Others  primarily  mean- 
ing sprinkle  come  to  mean  to  pour,  applied  to  water,  to 
rain,  which  falling  washes  the  millions  of  trees,  shrubs, 
all  vegetable  growths,  fences,  houses,  of  accumulated  dust, 
soot,  excrescences  that  can  be  thus  removed;  hence  to 
wash.  Pouring  rains  ^^ overflow,'^  cause  to  "overflow," 
"inundate,"  "overwhelm."  Overwhelming  objects  may 
and  often  does  cause  them  to  sink — be  immersed;  hence 
the  next  meaning  is  immerse,  submerse.  This  we  found 
illustrated  often.  Overwhelming  some  objects  causes  them 
"to  dip,"  as  a  vessel  often  does;  hence  naturally  comes 
that  meaning. 

Under  bapto  we  saw  that  from  sprinkle  comes  stain. 
We  saw  it  abundantly  in  Chapter  XIII.  Thence  we  saw 
that  it  comes  to  apply  to  coloring,  dyeing  in  any  way ;  hence, 
in  the  easiest  and  best  way,  by  dipping  into  the  fluid  the 
thing  to  be  dyed.  From  dipping  for  color  they  learned 
to  let  it  remain  in  for  some  time,  i.  e.  immerse.  Hence, 
sprinkle  is  demonstrated  to  be  the  primary  meaning  of 
both  words. 

15.  We  saw  that  baptidzo  in  its  earliest  known  occur- 
rences applies  to  bespattering  people  with  abusive  epi- 
thets— pouring  a  torrent  of  invectives.  We  know  noth- 
ing is  more  common  than  for  people  to  say  such  a  person 
"poured  a  torrent  of  abuse  upon  me;"  such  a  slander  or 
16 


242  BAPTISM. 

report  ^^  is  a  foul  aspersion."  We  never  saw  it  foul  dip- 
ping, foul  immersion.  Hence  the  primary  use  of  the  word 
was  for  aspersion.     Constantly,  then — 

16.  Words  meaning  to  sprinkle  primarily,  in  great  num- 
bers, cover  all  meanings  of  baptidzo;  words  for  immersion 
never  do ;  hence  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  sprinkle  was 
the  primary  meaning  of  baptidzo, 

17.  Let  it  be  remembered  now  how  seldom  baptidzo 
represents  "dip"  in  the  house  of  its  friends;  how  seldom 
immerse !  That  only  in  the  later  Greek  it  came  to  mean 
immerse  at  all.  That  these  authors — tlie  two  or  three  who 
use  it  for  immerse — lived  from  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ  down  in  remote  centuries  from 
those  in  which  the  apostles  Avere  educated;  that  it  so 
occurs  in  a  foreign  secular  literature  unknown  to  their 
education,  their  early  instruction ;  that  in  their  own  lit- 
erature it  always  meant  wash,  cleanse,  used  I'cligiously. 
And  had  they  followed  classic  usage,  the  prevailing  and 
earliest  use  of  it  was  in  the  sense  of  affusion,  and  the  most 
renowned  and  learned  Greeks  never  used  it  for  either  dip 
or  immerse,  as  seen  by  immersionists  themselves,  but  in 
the  sense  of  aifusion. 

18.  In  accordance  with  these  facts,  gathered  from  the 
chosen  fields  of  our  opponents,  we  turn  to  still  another 
illustration,  never  noted  by  any  writer  any  more  than 
were  the  preceding  facts,  viz:  In  the  period  B.C.  570,  tzeva 
(baptize  in  Syriac,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic)  occurs  for  the 
first  time  in  history  or  literature  (Dan.  iv,  12,  20,  22, 
30;  V.  21).  Nebuchadnezzar's  body  was  baptized  with  the 
dew  from  (apo)  heaven,  rendered  (conspergatur)  sprinkled 
by  Jerome  as  well  as  wet.  See  details  under  Versions. 
Later  by  centuries  this  word,  to  sprinkle,  means  to  wash 
in  the  Targums.     It  nowhere  occurs  in  Hebrew,  notwith- 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  243 

standing  Gesenius  assumes  meanings  for  it  for  immerse 
wlien  there  never  was  such  a  word  in  Hebrew  so  far  as 
literature  goes  ! !  Later  still  it  came  to  apply  to  a  partial 
dip,  and  still  kept  up  its  meanings,  wash  and  sprinkle,  as 
the  Targums  in  Psalm  vi,  7  ;  the  Syriac  Luke  vii,  38,  44; 
Ezekiel  xxii,  demonstrated.  Yet  immersionists  contend 
it  means  nothing  but  immerse  in  the  seventh  century  after 
Christ,  in  the  Arabic  version.^ 

19.  Shato.pli  {^'^%),  already  noticed,  "  a  pouring  rain,^' 
^'  overflowing  rain  ;'^  first  means  "  to  gush,  pour  out ;  ^^ 
second,  in  Leviticus,  fifteen  hundred  years  before  Christ,  it 
means  to  wash  every  time  it  occurs,  applied  to  what  the 
New  Testament  writers  call  baptism ;  third,  later  in  the 
Prophets,  it  is  to  wash,  overflow,  overwhelm,  but  never 
immerse;  fourth,  later  still,  in  the  sense  of  overwhelm, 
almost  altogether;  fifth,  then  later  still,  in  the  third 
century  after  Christ,  it  means  mainly  to  immerse,  sub- 
merse. See  the  latter  use,  Castelli  Heptaglotton,  sub.  v. 
?:i:|^n*^t^  ill  .«hiopic. 

IS    DIP   IMMERSE? 

Immersionists  insist  that  dip  is  exactly  synonymous 
with  immerse.  Dr.  Graves,  late  as  1876,  rewriting  his 
speeches,  Debate,  527,  says,  '^All  lexicons  give  dip  and  to 
immerse  as  synonymous  terms.'^  Italics  his.  In  reply  we 
say: 

1.  All  English  standards  giving  the  real  meaning  and 
early  usage  of  the  two  words  make  a  clear  and  perfect 
distinction  between  them.* 

"•••  In  Carrollton  Debate,  as  written  by  Dr.  Graves,  he  says  tseva  is 
baptize  in  Syriac — dip.     (See  the  full  quotation  on  Versions.) 

■•=■  Webster,  1878,  "  Dip.  1.  The  action  of  dipping  or  plunging  for  a 
moynent  into  a  fluid."     Again,  he  defines  it  "to  put  for  a  moment  into 


244  BAPTISM. 

2.  All  lexicons  clearly  bring  out  a  marked  difference  by 

(1)  Defining  words  that  have  various  meanings,  as 
moisten,  wet,  dip,  immerse,  by  various  Latin  words — in- 
tingo  for  dip,  immergo  for  immerse. 

(2)  Words  that  mean  strictly  and  always  to  immerse, 
demerse,  they  always  define  by  mergo,  immergo^  de-  and 
suhmergo,  never  by  intlngo,  dip,  much  less  by  tingo.  See 
many  examples  already  given.  Where  tabha,  immerse, 
e.  g,  is  defined,  Gesenius,  Castell,  Schindler,  Hottinger, 
Stokius,  Leigh,  all  use  immergo,  immevsit,  not  one  gives 
tingo  or  intingo.  No  lexicon  gives  thigo  or  intingo  for 
kaphash,  immerse,  or  for  Arabic  atta,  ghuta,  amasa,  im- 
merse, though  they  repeat  the  mersit,  de-,  and  immevsit 
over  and  again,  sometimes  fifteen  and  twenty  times,  giv- 
ing examples.  So  of  buthidzo,  katapontidzo,  kataduo,  im- 
merse. Nor  do  Kouma  and  Gazes,  native  Greek  lexicog- 
raphers, in  defining  these  words  use  diqjto  or  hapto,  dip. 

3.  Neither  do  Kouma  and  Gazes  use  dupio,  hapto,  in 
Greek  to  define  baptidzo,  though  they  use  buthidzo,  im- 
merse, sink. 

4.  Nor  will  this  bold  and  popular  assumption  by  im- 
mersionists  bear  comparing  with  the  words  for  immersion 
in  the  Bible.  A.  Campbell,  Conant,  Wilkes,  Graves,  Gale, 
Carson,  etc.  all  render  immerse  into  English  by  sink.  In 
Psalm  Ixix,  2,  in  the  Hebrew,  it  reads,  "I  immerse — sink 
— in  deep  mire.''  Was  he  dipped  in  it?  Psalm  ix,  15, 
reads  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  "  The  heathen  are  immersed 

any  liquid."  Webster,  1871,  gives  the  true  meaning  of  dip,  as  used  in 
James's  version,  and  those  times — "  to  insert  in  a  fluid,  and  withdraw 
again"  (Lev.  iv,  6).  He  thus  gives  the  meaning  of  immerse— "Im- 
merse [Lat,  immersus,  etc.],  immersed ;  buried,  hid,  sunk  [obs.].  'Things 
immerse  in  matter ' "  (Bacon).  Here  is  the  true,  literal  force  of  immerse 
— it  had  no  other  force  till  the  loose  style  of  Baptists  introduced  its  pres- 
ent uses  which,  of  course,  dictionaries  have  to  follow. 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  245 

—sunk  down  in  the  pit  that  they  made."  Were  they  simply 
dipped  in  it?  Exodus  xv,  5,  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  reads, 
"  They  immersed — sank — into  the  bottom  as  a  stone."  Did 
they  simply  dip  into  the  bottom,  ^Svithdrawing"  immedi- 
ately? In  verse  10  the  same  reads,  "They  immersed — 
sank  as  lead  in  the  mighty  waters."  Were  they  merely 
dipped?  In  Matthew  xviii,  6,  the  Greek  reads,  "It  were 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck, 
and  that  he  were  immersed  in  the  depth  of  the  sea." 
Would  dip  do  there  ? 

5.  Let  us  put  it  dip  where  Dr.  Graves  and  others  ren- 
der it  immerse,  sink.  Example  39  in  Conant,  "And  al- 
ready becoming  immerged  (baptized)  and  wanting  little  of 
sinking" — of  a  ship.  Render  it  now,  "And  already  be- 
coming dipped  and  wanting  little  of  dipping,"  etc.  Ex- 
ample 22,  Debate,  p.  237,  of  ships  and  the  crew — "And 
were  submerged  (baptized)  along  with  their  vessels." 
Were  the  vessels  that  submerged  merely  dipped  ?  Exam- 
ple 4,  Debate,  p.  207,  "'  Certain  desert  places  .  .  .  which, 
when  it  is  ebb-tide,  are  not  baptizesthai — immersed,  bap- 
tized, but  when  it  is  flood-tide  are  overflowed."  Were  the 
"desert  places"  dipped?  Scores  of  examples  could  be 
added.     Let  these  serve  as  samples. 

6.  All  ancient  and  all  more  modern  versions  act  by  the 
same  rule.  They  never  render  bapto^  e.  g.  by  immerse, 
etc.  or  submerse,  but  by  tingo,  intingo,  aspergo  in  Latin, 
and  by  corresponding  words  in  all  other  versions.  As 
mergOy  immergo  are  words  so  common  in  Latin,  why  in  all 
the  Bible  in  so  many  versions  did  they  not  use  them  if 
tingOy  intingo  were  the  same  as  mergo,  etc.  ? 

Let  us  now  examine  the  Semitic  words  that  definitely 
and  strictly  mean  to  immerse  in  current  use,  and  notice 
their  original  import  as  well. 


246  BAPTISM. 

1.  Gamasa^  in  Hebrew  means  to  burden;  in  Arabic  to 
hide,  conceal,  perplex,  obscure,  evade,  hide;  then,  from 
burden,  to  immerse,  and  currently  has  that  meaning. 

2.  Gamara,-\  Arabic,  to  press,  compress,  yet  constantly 
it  means  to  immerse,  demerse,  submerse. 

3.  Amatha,  X  Arabic,  to  be  heavy ;  then  commonly  to 
demerse. 

4.  Dul,  dala,%  Arabic,  to  depress;  then  commonly  to 
immerse. 

5.  Ga}'a%  (Hebrew,  gur),  to  descend,  depress,  immerse. 

6.  J-^^a,  II  to  oppress,  press  down;  then,  common,  to 
immerse,  demerse. 

7.  Kaphashj^^  to  press  down,  immerse. 

8.  Shakahyff  shaqa,  to  depress,  compress;  then  im- 
merse, submerse,  especially. 

9.  p^^],  tabhcij  Hebrew,  Syriac,  Arabic,  all  give  "to 
impress.''  Syriac,  "  primarily  to  impress.''  Buxtorf  gives 
"to  press,  impress  or  fix  in,  be  immersed,  demersed,"  etc. 
From  impress  comes  the  meaning  to  cut  or  coin  money. 
Webster's  Dictionary  runs  wild  here  after  Gesenius's  crude 
method,  but  were  his  position  regarded  as  sound  it,  too, 
would  add  strength  to  our  facts  here;  but  we  regard  his 
views  here  as  unsound  as  to  tap,  tupto,  strike,  etc. 

1.  Notice,  not  one  of  these  words  gives  dip,  intingo,  or 
tingo,  or  wash,  etc.  as  a  meaning. 

2.  They  show  the  true  idea  of  immerse — sinking  under 
a  pressure,  not  involving,  like  dip,  immediate  withdrawal. 

TINGO. 

As  tingo  figures  in  these  discussions,  we  prefer  to  pre- 
sent the  leading  facts  in  this  connection  that  all  may  de- 

*D^:?     ti^or     t.n?2r     gbN-;     ifTii?      iroJ?     *-*r£D     ttrpt 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  247 

termiiie  for  themselves.     While  immersionists  have  made 
a  most  forced  use  of  this  word  generally,  Dr.  Graves,  in 
his  last  three  speeches  on  Mode,  outHerods  Herod  in  the 
perverseness  of  his  statements,  though  not  a  Avord  of  all 
there  said  was  said  in  the  debate,   but  written  down  de- 
liberately in  his  room  in  Memphis,  Avith  my  manuscript 
speeches  violently  usurped,  and  most  dishonestly  held  in 
violation  of  all  the  agreements  of  the  parties  publishing — 
all  being  Baptists,  in  the  same  house  with  Dr.  Graves. 
Out  of  hundreds  of  cases  of  his  daring  assertions — they 
refusing  to  send  to  me  a  single  proof-sheet  of  it,  all  re- 
Avritten  with   quite   all  he  did   say  thrown   out,  all  the 
speeches  being  new  matter  unseen  by  me,  hence  could  not 
be  anticipated — we  present  one  sample  case  before  we  take 
him   upon   tingo.     After  citing  Maimonides  on  washing- 
several  times,  on  page  493  he   cites  him  again,  and  Dr. 
Alting  thus:  ^^  Whence  the  Jews  observe  that  whenever 
a  command  occurs  for  washing  the  clothes,  the  washing  of 
the  whole  body  is  either  added  or  understood. ^^     Now  Dr. 
Graves  immediately  adds  of  me,    '^He  [Ditzler]  declares 
to  you  that  ^no  rabbi  on  earth  says  so.^     Was  not  Mai- 
monides a  rabbi  ?'^      Now  turn  to  page  460,  whence  he 
copies  my  words,  and  see  the  willful  perversion.     There  I 
state  that  ^^  Dr.  G.  says  the  ^  most  learned  rabbins  tell  us 
that  invariably  in  the  Hebrew  purifications  where  raeliats, 
^  to  wash,'  is  spoken  of,  either  of  the  clothes  or  of  the  per- 
son, the  whole  body  must  be  immersed  in  water.'     They 
do  no  such  thing.     No  rabbi  on  earth  says  so.''     Here  I 
assert  that  no  rabbi  on  earth  says  in  all  these  cases  the 
person  "  immersed  in  water.''     Dr.  Graves  now  changes 
it  to  "  wash  the  whole  body,"  and  makes  my  words  apply 
to  denying  that ! !     On  the  same  page  we  gave  the  facts 
and  words  of  Rabbi   M.,  showing   they  meant  wash,  as 


248  BAPTISM. 

Alting,  his  own  authority,  renders  him,  but  which  Drs.  G., 
Wilkes,  and  all  immersionists  most  unjustly  render  "  dip" 
and  "  immerse.'^ 

Continuing  to  rewrite  his  speeches,  knowing  I  would 
not  be  allowed  to  see  and  refute  the  glaring  and  reckless 
assertions  (p.  429  of  the  Carrollton  Debate),  he  says,  as 
to  lexicons  defining  by  tingo,  that  I  "  was  rendering  those 
meanings  which  those  old  lexicographers  indicate  in  Latin 
by  tingo  by  '  to  sprinkle  ! '  In  this  respect  Elder  Ditzler 
has  ignorantly,  if  not  intentionally,  misrepresented  every 
lexicon  he  has  quoted."  On  page  432  he  pretends  that  my 
^^  sprinkle"  in  Tertullian  is  from  ^^  tingo. ''^  Dr.  G.  had 
my  speeches  before  him,  and  in  the  lexicons  he  had  them 
before  him  in  print^ — clear  type.  Hence  he  knew  that  every 
word  he  uttered  above  was  untrue,  and  most  flagrantly  so. 

He  knew  that  not  in  a  single  lexicon  cited  in  all  the 
debate,  had  I  rendered  tingo  sprinkle,  but  moisten,  wet, 
stain,  as  the  author  meant,  as  pages  197,  438,  88,  378, 
27-30,  abundantly  show,  and  on  Tertullian  (pp.  244,  245, 
197). 

On  page  482  he  says,  "  Faustianus  [misprint  for  Fersti- 
anus],  whom  Dr.  Beecher  quotes  as  undoubtedly  using 
tingere  in  the  sense  of  *  to  dip,'  my  opponent  makes  him 
say  *to  sprinkle.' " 

Here  are  two  glaring  statements  which  Dr.  G.  could 
not  help  knowing  to  be  flagrantly  untrue. 

1.  Beecher  quotes  and  translates  tingo  in  Fiirst  by  wash, 

and  "to   moisten"*  in  other  places,  as  I  have  done.     I 

render  it  "  dip  "  also. 

*  Beecher  on  Baptism,  p.  69:  "  Fuerstius,  in  the  learned  lexicon,  de- 
fines tabhal,  rigare,  tingere,  perfundere,  and  last  of  all  immergere.  To 
wet,  to  wash,  to  perfuse,  to  immerse."  On  pat^e  16  B.  quotes  Facciolatus 
and  Forcellinus  and  Leverett,  who  "give  it  the  sense  [of]  to  moisten,  to 
wet."     Thus  is  this  bold  and  false  statement  exposed. 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  249 

2.  Dr.  G.  says  I  render  it  "sprinkle."  He  knew  bet- 
ter. It  was  the  German  "  begiessen/^  in  the  Latin  of 
Fiirst  " jyerf under e/'  that  I  rendered  sprinkle,  just  as 
Rabbi  Wise,  imniersionist,  and  S.  Davidson,  one  of 
the  most  learned  scholars  of  this  century  do.  Dr. 
G.  renders  the  same  word,  '' perfundet^e/'  "  besprinkle." 
Beecher,  in  the  same  sentence  referred  to  by  Dr.  G.,  ren- 
ders it  "  perfuse,"  i.  e.  besprinkle. 

On  page  473  he  says  again,  "  Whenever  Elder  Ditzler, 
therefore,  translates  it  {tingo)  by  ^  to  sprinkle,'  when  lexi- 
cographers give  tingo,  intlngo,  mergo,  immergo,  as  the  j^ri- 
mary  definition  of  the  Hebrew  taval,  or  of  the  Greek 
verbs  bapto,  bapttidzo,  or  the  Syriac  amad,  he  most  grossly 
perverts  those  authors,  and  he  does  it  ignorantly  or  in- 
tentionally, nor  can  he  escape  the  alternative."  Dr.  G. 
here — : 

1.  States  what  he  knew  to  be  without  a  shadow  of  truth 
from  beginning  to  end,  as  my  speeches  (pp.  27-e30,  88, 197, 
438-9,  405,  551)  so  abundantly  show;  and  they  were  then 
all  under  his  eye — in  his  hands. 

2.  He  displays  an  ignorance  that  is  as  incurable  as  it  is 
unendurable  by  saying  that  lexicographers  define  baptidzo 
and  the  Syriac  amad  by  tingOj  when  not  a  single  lexicon 
extant  does  so.  Sophocles  puts  the  patristic  use  of  tmgo 
in  his  lexicon  without  translating  it.  Schaaf  s  Syriac  lex- 
icon gives  tingo  as  a  meaning  of  the  Arabic  word  amada, 
not  of  the  Syriac  amad;  nor  does  any  Syriac  lexicon  we 
have  ever  seen  define  amad  by  tingo.  Page  313,  Dr.  G. 
quotes  Scapula  as  defining  baptidzo  by  '^item  tingo J^  Page 
363  I  corrected  him  as  well  as  on  his  rendering,  page  338, 
yet  after  this,  page  432,  he  says,  "  Prof  Toy "  says  "  the 
lexicons  frequently  give  tingere  for  baptizein.  As  to  this, 
it  is  agreed  that  Tertullian  and  other  Latin  writers  use 


250  BAPTISM. 

tingere  always  in  the  sense  of  to  immerse.''  We  are 
not  surprised  at  any  statement  Dr.  G.  should  make,  unless 
he  should  for  just  once  tell  the  truth  as  to  any  of  these 
matters,  but  we  had  a  right  to  expect  better  things  of 
Prof.  Toy. 

TINOO — DR.  GRAVES   AND  TOY  ON. 

1.  Prof  Toy  says,  "The  lexicons  frequently  give  tin- 
gere for  baptlzeinJ'  Let  him  produce  one  that  does  so. 
He  can  not  do  it,  save  the  one  single  work  of  S.,  just 
named,  who  does  not  give  tingo  as  a  definition,  but  sums 
up  the  Latin  patristic  use  of  it,  not  translating  his  words 
even.  We  point  out  these  facts,  not  that  it  is  against  us, 
for  tingo  helps  us  far  more  than  them,  but  we  do  it  to  ex- 
pose the  want  of  care  and  truth  in  these  parties.  Ste- 
phanus  shows  that  the  Latin  fathers  use  tingo  for  baptize, 
but  he  does  not  define  it  by  tingo  for  good  reasons,  Tingo 
oftener  means  to  stain,  tincture,  color,  dye  than  any  thing 
else  really,  though  moisten  be  its  primary  Latin  meaning, 
and  hence  no  standard  lexicon  would  stultify  itself  as  Drs. 
Toy  and  G.  do. 

2.  Prof  T.  says,  "  It  is  agreed  among  scholars  that  T., 
etc.  use  tingere  always  in  the  sense  of  immerse.''  This  is 
utterly  untrue,  as  we  will  show  in  due  time. 

Page  527  Dr.  G.  says,  "All  lexicons  give  to  dip  and  to 
immerse  as  synonymous  terms,  as  the  Germans  give  mergo, 
immergo,  and  tingo  as  synonymous  of  baptidzo.^' 

1.  If  they  give  tingo  as  synonymous  with  baptidzo  all 
the  better  for  us. 

2.  No  German  lexicon  in  existence  gives  tingo  as  a 
meaning  of  baptidzo  in  any  case. 

3.  No  German  lexicon  gives  dip,  or  tingo,  as  synony- 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  251 

mous  with  immerse,  sink,  for  the  reason  that  they  have 
learning,  sense,  and  honesty. 

TINGO — DR.  GRAVES   ON — JEROME   ON. 

Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  433)  says,  ^Merome  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  as  in  all  his  writings,  invariably  uses  tingo  as  the 
Latin  synonym  of  the  Greek  verb  hapto,  to  dip.'^ 

1.  If  this  was  truthfully  said  of  Jerome  it  would  of  it- 
self show  how  absurd  and  untrue  are  all  the  above  asser- 
tions about  tingo  being  the  synonym  of  baptldzo;  for  where 
in  the  New  Testament  or  any  where  is  bapto  used  for  bap- 
tism or  as  the  synonym  of  haptidzof 

2.  The  statement  is  utterly  untrue  in  all  respects — ut- 
terly untrue.  Bapto  occurs  in  the  common  Greek  text  of 
the  New  Testament  only  three  times,  viz.  Luke  xvi,  24; 
John  xiii,  26;  Revelation  xix,  13.  Embapjto  occurs  in 
Matthew  xxvi,  23;  Mark  xiv,  20.  Some  copies  have  it 
emhapto  in  John  xiii,  26 — Tischendorf,  Lachmaun,  etc. 
Now  Jerome  renders  the  above  three  occurrences  as  fol- 
lows : 

Luke  xvi,  24,  intlngat;  John  xiii,  26,  intinctum,  intinx- 
isset  (and  emhapto  he  renders  intingo  every  time) ;  while 
the  third  occurrence  of  hapto.  Revelation  xix,  13,  he  ren- 
ders thus:  Et  vestibus  erat  veste  aspersa  sanguine — and  he 
was  clothed  with  a  vesture  sprinkled  with  blood.  In  other 
words,  bapto  occurs  only  three  times  in  the  Greek  New 
Testament,  and  Jerome  renders  it  sprinkle  in  one  third  of 
its  occurrences,  but  never  renders  it  in  all  the  Bible  by 
tingo, 

3.  If  tingo  be  the  synonym  of  baptidzo,  why  does  not 
the  Itala,  Jerome,  Beza,  and  the  dozen  other  Latin  ver- 
sions I  have  by  me  render  baptidzo  by  tingo  at  least  once 


252  BAPTISM. 

ill  all  the  Bible  ?  for  not  one  of  them  does  so,  neither  by 
intingo.     Such  is  Dr.  Graves's  reliability ! 

LEXICONS   ON  TINGO. 

Let  us  now  cite  the  standard  lexicons  in  order  on  this 
much-abused  word.  As  it  is  derived  from  the  Greek 
tengo,  as  Carson  justly  tells  us  and  all  scholars  know,  we 
begin  with  the  lexicons  on  the  original.  And  as  Drs. 
Graves,  Wilkes,  Campbell,  etc.  so  parade  the  primary 
meaning  and  assume  that  the  first  meaning  presented  is 
the  primary,  we  may  hope  they  will  not  fly  from  their  own 
positions. 

1.  Groves:  ^^ Tengo  ('^r/^),  to  moisten,  wet,  water, 
sprinkle,  bedew." 

2.  Liddell  &  Scott:  ^' Tengo,  to  wet,  moisten,  to  bedew 
with,  especially  with  tears;  weep,  to  shed  tears,  a  shower 
fell,  .  .  .  III.  To  dye,  stain ;  Latin,  tlngere,'^  etc. 

3.  Stephanus:  '' Tengo,  to  moisten,  to  make  wet,"  with 
tears,  dew,  rain. 

4.  Pape:  ^' Tengo,  moisten,  wet,  shed  tears."* 

5.  Passow:  ^' Tengo,  moisten,  wet,  shed  tears." 

6.  Rost  and  Palm:  ^^ Tengo,  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to  shed 
tears,"  etc. 

Let  us  now  have  the  Latin  lexicons  on  this  word,  as 
spelled  in  Latin,  translated  immerse  and  dip  always  by 
Drs.  Conant,  Graves,  Wilkes,  etc. : 

1.  Andrews:  ^^Tingo,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  (B)  to  soak  or 
color,  to  dye,  color,  tinge." 

2.  Freund:  ^^Tingo,  to  wet,  moisten,  tengo,  brecho,  hu- 
graino,  [moisten,  shed  tears,  rain,  sprinkle,  water,  sprin- 
kle], to  moisten,  to  bedew,  to  bathe,  wash,  dip  in,  plunge, 
immerse ;  color,  stain,  tinge,  tint." 

*Benetzen,  anfcuchten,  Thranen  ve7\qicssen. 


CLASSICAL   USAGE — SUMMARY  OF    FACTS.  253 

3.  Ainsworth:  ^'Tmgo,  first,  to  dye,  color,  stain;  sec- 
ond, to  sprinkle,  to  imbrue;  third,  to  wash;  fourth,  to 
paint." 

4.  Anthon:  ^^Tlngo,  moisten,  wet,"  etc. 

5.  White:  ''Tingo,  moisten,  wet,"  etc. 

This  is  making  poor  headway  to  show  that  tmgo  is 
synonymous  with  immerse. 

6.  Ovid:  ^^Tingerey  wet  the  body  with  sprinkled 
water."  * 

7.  ^^And  seems  to  sprinkle  with  briny  dew  the  sur- 
rounding clouds."! 

Here  in  both  cases  tlngo  is  defined  in  its  effect  by 
sprinkle — by  a  Latin  who  lived  in  the  apostolic  age. 

8.  "By  chance  his  hounds,  led  by  the  blood-stained 
track."  t 

Was  the  ground  immersed  or  dipped  in  the  blood  of 
the  wounded  stag? 

9.  Calvin:  "It  is  of  no  importance  whether  all  who 
are  baptized  \tingati\  are  immersed  [iinergantur\  and  that 
thi'ice  or  once,  or  water  is  only  poured  on  them."  § 

Here  Calvin,  as  all  the  fathers  writing  in  Latin,  uses, 
as  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  etc.  did,  tingo  for  baptize,  just  as 
Germans  do  tanfen,  we  baptize;  and  when  he  expresses 
the  different  modes  in  which  we  could  be  baptized — tingo 
— he  gives  immerse  and  pour  water  on  them.  One  more 
father. 

10.  Archbishop  Sebastian,  of  Metz:  "Then  let  the 
priest  take  the  child  in  his  left  arm,  and  holding  him  over 
the  font  let  him  with  his  right  hand  three  several  times 

"'■•  Ovid,  Met.  vii,  599 :  Tingere  corpus  aqua  aspersa, 
t  Ovid,  Met.  xi,  498 :  Et  induciiis  aspergine  tingere  nuhes  videiur. 
X  Sa7iguine  tincta  suo  (Ovid,  x,  713 ).     See  Louisville  Debate,  page 
430,  where  many  such  texts  are  given,  the  fruit  of  much  research, 
g  Institutes,  lib.  iv,  chap,  xv,  sec.  19. 


254  BAPTISM. 

take  water  out  of  the  font  and  pour  it  on  the  child's  head 
so  that  the  water  (aqua  tingat)  wets  his  head  and  shoul- 
der/'* 

Notice  here  the  mode  is  given ;  the  water  is  "  poured 
on  the  child  so  that  it  (tingat)  wets  his  head  and  shoul- 
ders."    Tingo  is  the  effect  of  the  pour. 

11.  Ovid:  "Let  us  wash  (tingo  is  the  word)  our  naked 
bodies  with  water  poured  upon  them.^f 

(1)  Here  the  mode  in  which  tingo  is  effected  is  again 
given — the  water  is  poured  upon  the  naked  bodies. 

(2)  It  shows  the  manner  of  ancient  baths. 

(3)  Drs.  Graves,  Toy,  etc.,  as  well  as  Carson,  say  that 
tingo  is  equivalent  to  baptidzo  in  the  lexicons  and  the 
Lathi  fathers,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  etc.  Conant 
renders  it  immerse  constantly  also  as  well  as  Wilkes. 

(4)  All  these  are  as  literal  uses  as  language  can  oifer. 
They  are  real  persons,  Avashed  with  real  water,  literally 
poured  upon  them. 

12.  Horace:  "And  wet  (tinguet)  the  pavement  with 
wine."  What  was  the  mode  of  tingo  here  where  wine 
was  let  fall  on  the  pavement? 

13.  Ovid :  J  "He  beat  the  ground,  stained  (tinctam)  with 
guilty  blood." 

14.  Calpuronius:  "To  wet  (tingere)  the  pastures  with 
dew."  Here  the  dew  falls  on  the  pastures  and  (tingo)  wets 
them.     What  was  the  mode? 

Aside  from  hosts  of  like  citations,  Fiirst  uses  tingo  in 
his  Latin  lexicon  to  define  the  word  that  in  his  German 
lexicon  is   defined  by  benetzen — wet.     Schindler,  Castell, 

'■■  "Wall,  i,  577 :  Aqua  tingat  caput  et  scapulas. 
t  Nuda  superfusis  tingamus  corpora  lymphis. 

X  Hamum :  Scelerato  sanguine  tinctam.  I  reread  Ovid  to  select  from 
him,  because  he  was  contemporary  with  the  apostolic  period. 


CLASSICAL    USAGE — SUMMARY  OF   FACTS.  255 

etc.  use  tingo  constantly  where  it  is  with  tears,  dew,  rain. 
We  have  always  frankly  stated,  also,  that  in  some  cases 
tingo  means  dip,  plunge.  And  Dr.  Graves  cites  such  cases 
as  if  it  were  a  contradiction !  Have  we  not  given  cases 
where  hosts  of  words  mean  to  wet,  moisten,  nay,  to  sprinkle 
and  pour,  that  also  mean  to  dip,  etc.?  What  do  such  par- 
tisans hope  for,  or  what  excuse  can  they  render  for  such 
conduct  ? 


256  BAPTISM, 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Baptidzo,  Sink,  Immerse,   Sprinkle — Why  do  not 
We  Translate? — Why  do  not  They  Translate? 

As  scholars  all  agree,  it  is  rare,  if  ever,  that  one  word 
exactly  represents  or  is  the  exact  equivalent  of  another. 
But  where  one  word,  as  wash,  purify,  cleanse,  for  baptize, 
occurs,  it  does  necessarily  represent  all  tlie  meaning,  and 
no  more  of  the  word  than  the  last  limiting  word  con- 
tains. It  limits  the  other  word  altogether  to  what  is 
necessarily  contained  in  that  word.  This  becomes  the 
more  decisive  when  the  words  occur  a  great  many  times 
by  the  same  school  of  writers,  yet  is  invariably  thus  used. 
Thus  haptidzo  is  wash,  cleanse,  or  [)urify  wherever  its  rit- 
ualistic import  or  design  is  referred  to  in  the  Bible.  Eph. 
V,  26;  Titus  iii,  5;  Heb.  x,  22;  Acts  xxii,  16;  John  iii, 
22-25;  Ps.  li,  2-9,  etc.  See  above.  The  entire  force  or 
meaning  hajAidzo  was  intended  to  have  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  contained  in  the  words  cleanse,  wash,  or  purify. 
Inspired  men  in  the  above  texts  thus  limit  its  force.  It  is 
in  this  view  that  baptidzo  as  referring  to  the  Christian  rite 
oan  not  be  represented  by  any  modal  word — immerse,  dip, 
sprinkle,  pour — because  in  the  Christian  use  no  one  of 
'hose  words  represents  necessarily  the  wash,  the  cleanse, 
the  purify  of  haptidzo.  Sprinkle  could  and  did  represent 
the  mere  daily  baptisms  of  Mark  vii,  4,  being  mere  tra- 
ditional sprinklings. 

But  it  is  said  we  will  not  translate  haptidzo  by  sprinkle 


BAPTIDZO,    SINK,    IMMERSE,    SPlilNKLE.  257 

in  the  New  Testament.  Why  not  translate  it  by  a  plain 
English  word,  sprinkle,  and  not  transfer,  merely  Angliciz- 
ing the  Greek  Avord  baptidzof    Answer — 

1.  Wherever  the  solemn  rite  of  Christian  baptism  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Testament  all  ancient  versions  that  were 
in  languages  kindred  to  the  Greek — all  that  allowed  of  it — 
transferred  the  word  in  all  such  cases.  This  was  the  uni- 
versal practice  from  the  old  Itala,  the  Coptic,  the  Vulgate, 
on  through  the  centuries  till  the  days  of  King  James,  in- 
cluding the  Italian,  Spanish,  French,  Lusitanian,  Wyc- 
lifFe,  fi'om  the  Vulgate,  Tyndale,  1526,  and  the  four  or  five 
English  versions,  with  James's  as  the  last. 

2.  In  every  place  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  rite 
of  baptism  with  water  is  mentioned,  not  Christian,  but 
Jewish  baptism,  it  can  be  rendered  sprinkle,  and  is  the 
correct  rendering  (Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38). 

3.  Hence  the  two  best  and  most  ancient  copies  of  the 
Bible  known,  copied  nearly  sixteen  hundred  years  ago, 
with  a  number  of  later  manuscript  copies,  render  it 
"sprinkle  themselves'^  in  Mark  vii,  4.  See  Versions,  for 
all  the  facts  here. 

4.  There  is  that  in  the  solemn  rite  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, as  just  shown,  that  no  mere  modal  word  can  repre- 
sent. Baptidzo  obtained  a  significance  that  no  mere  word 
of  action  could  represent  in  Christian  baptism. 

WHY  NOT  TRANSLATE    INTO    ENGLISH? 

5.  No  immersionist  does  render  baptidzo  by  a  plain 
English  word  throughout  the  New  Testament.  They  have 
never  done  it  and  never  will  do  it,  putting  it  in  the  text  as 
a  rendering.  They  carefully  put  it  in  an  Anglicized  Latin 
word — immerse,  the  English  of  which  is  to  "sink  in." 

17 


258  BAPTISM. 

"sink."  In  the  Louisville  Debate,  p.  566,  we  elaborate 
this  fact,  saying,  "Now,  immerse,  simply  and  literally  and 
alwaygy  rfteans  to  sink,  sink  in.  This  is  the  English.'' 
Elder  Wilkes  replies,  p.  574,  "  He  tries  very  hard  to  prove 
that  mergo,  immergo,  .  .  .  mean  to  sink.  I  believe  him. 
I  will  save  him  trouble  on  that  subject  by  telling  him  that 
I  know  that  these  words  mean  to  sink."  Again,  p.  599, 
he  brings  it  up  again  and  says,  "We  have  Anglicized  im- 
merse from  mergo,  immergo.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to 
give  a  definition  of  this  word  [immerse]  now.  We  know 
what  it  means;  we  are  agreed  about  that.''  A.  Campbell 
renders  haptidzo  sink  over  and  again.  See  where  the 
renderings  are  detailed. 

Dr.  J.  R.  Graves,  Carrollton  Debate,  p.  520,  "All  the 
Latin  fathers,  .  .  .  one  and  all,  understood  haptidzo  to  sig- 
nify mergo,  immergo,  tingo,  intingo,  to  sink  in,"  etc.  Page 
389  he  has  it  "  sinking  in,"  and  often  so. 

Now  apply  that  rendering  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment. "Came  John,  the  sinker-in."  "I  sank  in  none  of 
you  but  Crispus,"  etc.  "Go,  disciple  all  nations,  sinking 
them  in  in  the  name,"  etc. 

Hence,  ancient  copyists  render  it  by  sprinkle  for  bap- 
tize. 

When  it  appears,  as  has  been  shown,  that  long  before 
haptidzo  came  to  mean  to  immerse  it  was  taken  by  the 
Jews  to  mean  to  wash,  purify,  and  thus  limited  in  relig- 
ious use  (Eccles.  xxiv,  25;  Judith  xii,  7),  this  of  itself 
settles  that  question.  AVhen  hapto  came  to  mean  stain, 
(jolor,  though  in  earliest  usage  it  was  always  by  aifusion 
(see  it  fully  demonstrated  in  Chapters  XI-XIII),  yet 
when  it  came  to  mean  stain,  color,  it  soon  came  to  apply 
to  coloring  where  the  art  of  dipping  in  the  fluid  was  prac- 
ticed.    It  applies  where  the  fluid  is  sprinkled  on,  drops 


BAPTIDZO,  SINK,    IMMERSE,   SPRINKLE.  259 

Oil  the  garments,  and  where  the  garments  are  dipped. 
Hence,  when  hapto  is  used  for  stain,  it  does  not  imply  any 
particular  mode,  but  only  implies  the  force  or  necessary 
limitations  of  stain  in  whatever  way  it  may  be  effected. 


260  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

Baptidzo  in  Aristotle,  etc. 

1.  We  have  traced  baptidzo  from  its  first  appearance  in 
literature  among  the  Greeks,  so  far  as  that  literature  has 
survived,  down  to  Aristotle,  B.C.  384,  covering  a  period 
of  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  years. 

2.  In  all  this  period  it  occurs  only  in  a  metaphorical 
sense,  pointing  to  aji  earlier  literal  use. 

3.  In  all  cases  the  usage  demonstrates  that  it  was  as 
yet  never  used  for  dip,  never  for  immerse. 

4.  It  demonstrates  that  it  primarily  meant  to  sprinkle, 
thence  to  pour,  thence  to  wash,  to  saturate,  to  drench  as 
the  effect  of  pouring  water.  Thence  it  came  to  mean  to 
soak,  intoxicate,  make  drunk.  From  pour  came  overflow, 
overwhelm.  From  overwhelm  came  sink,  as  a  later  mean- 
ing still.     From  sink  came  drown,  as  its  effect. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  no  lexicon  in  existence  gives 
to  baptidzo  the  meanings  dip  or  immerse  till  Polybius, 
Diodorus  Sicilus,  Strabo,  and  Plutarch. 

ARISTOTLE,    B.C.    384. 

Aristotle  uses  baptidzo  only  once  in  all  his  writings,  so 
far  as  found. 

"  Certain  places  full  of  rushes  and  sea-weed,  which 
when  it  is  ebb-tide  are  not  overflowed  {mae  baptidzesthai), 
but  at  full-tide  are  overflowed'^  (katahhidzesthai). 


BAPTIDZO   IN    AHISTOTLE,    ETC.  261 

1.  Let  this  case  be  very  carefully  examined,  for  it  is 
the  first  time  in  Greek  literature  in  which  we  come  upon 
the  word  used  literally. 

2.  It  is  used  by  the  most  accurate  and  careful  and 
learned  of  all  Greeks. 

3.  It  is  interchanged  with  another  Avord,  used  in  ex- 
actly the  same  sense,  both  rendered  by  ^'overflow/'  as 
Stuart,  A.  Campbell,  etc.  render  it. 

4.  There  is  no  dip  here ;  no  one  will  venture  to  render 
it  by  dipped. 

5.  It  is  not  immerse.  "The  places,'^  lands  subject  to 
overflow,  did  not  sink,  did  not  merse  or  immerse ;  but — 

6.  The  literal  water  came  upon  the  land.  The  baptiz- 
ing element  came  upon  the  object,  baptizing  it.  Whether 
every  part  of  the  land  was  overflowed  by  the  water  we 
can  not  know.  All  the  reasonable  probabilities  are  that, 
like  all  other  average  districts  of  country  of  like  kind, 
parts  were  overflowed,  parts,  higher  spaces,  were  not.  Yet 
the  whole  is  baptized. 

7.  The  most  valuable  point,  though,  is  the  light  this 
literal  text  throws  on  the  philology  of  the  word.  Over- 
flow is  a  literal  meaning  of  baptidzo  in  Aristotle's  day. 
Overflow  can  not  be  derived  from  dip  as  a  primary  mean- 
ing. Hence  dip  never  was  a  primary,  nay,  never  was  a 
meaning  of  baptidzo  at  all. 

8.  Further,  baptidzo  is  interchanged  with  perikludzo. 
Perikludzo  is  rendered  sprinkle  by  Stephanus  and  others.* 
Passow  gives  wash,  bedash,  wet,  for  kludzo.  Groves  gives 
for  perikludzo,  '^Wash  all  round  or  all  over,  dash  water, 
sprinkle  all  over." 

Liddell  &  Scott :  Kludzo.     See  on  former  page. 
Glosses:  To  sprinkle. f 

*  Bucldoeus  and  Stephanus  have  -epiK/.i-afmri,  2^eriklHsmati,  nsj^rgino. 
t  Ai<pcrgo,  pcrfnndo. 


262  BAPTISM. 

Here  is  a  word — Uudzo — that  primarily  applies  to  such 
aspersions  and  inspersions  as  sprinkling  water  over  the 
body,  dashing  it  on  the  face,  washing  out  the  ears,  and 
from  which  our  noun  clyster  is  derived,  coming  to  mean 
overflow  and  to  inundate  and  haptidzo,  used  in  exactly 
the  same  sense  by  the  most  learned  of  all  Greeks. 

7.  Eubulus,  B.C.  380,  comes  next.  He  uses  the  word 
once,  its  sense  altogether  uncertain,  and  hence  we  omit  it. 

8.  Evenus,  B.C.  250,  uses  it  once,  "  Wine  baptizes  with 
stupor  or  sleep"  (t>;ri/d>,  kupno).  This  is  a  metaphorical 
use  again  and  has  no  dip  in  it.* 

9.  Polybius  now  appears,  born  about  B.C.  205.  He 
wrote  about  B.C.  150  or  160,  say.  He  is  the  first  Greek 
who  uses  baptidzo  for  immerse,  the  earliest  cited  by  any 
lexicon  for  such  a  meaning.  Next,  about  B.C.  QQ  to  33, 
Diodorus  Siculus;  then,  later,  Strabo,  and  a.d.  90  Plutarch 
uses  it  at  times  for  overwhelm,  at  times  for  immerse, 
i.e.  sink;  then  still  also  for  intoxicate,  etc. 

These  writers  do  not  write  in  the  ancient,  classic  style, 
but  are  the  introducers  of  a  coarse,  greatly-modified  style 
of  Greek,  as  Liddell  &  Scott  in  the  introduction  to  their 
lexicon  tell  us.  But  long  years  and  centuries  before  this 
baptidzo  was  used  for  the  religious  washing  of  the  Jews, 
and  its  religious  import  and  action  settled  before  the  word 
came  to  mean  immerse.  It  never  does  mean  to  dip,  as  we 
saw. 

•••  If  any  one  urge  that,  at  least  we  may  say,  one  sinks  in  sleep,  so 
may  we  sa}- ,  "  Pour  delicious  slumber  o'er  mine  eyes."  Poets  often  use 
pour  for  such  an  idea.     And  there  is  no  dij). 


BAPTIDZO   IN    LATEK   GREEK — CON  ANT.  26o 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

Baptidzo  in  Later  Greek — Conant. 

In  addition  to  the  facts  adduced^  we  will  copy  a  few 
later  cases  adduced  by  Dr.  Conant  as  the  strongest  cases 
in  favor  of  his  immersion  theory.  In  his  ^'Baptizein'^ 
we  select — 

1.  Page  10:  ^'And  those  of  the  submerged  (baptized) 
who  raised  their  heads,  either  a  missile  reached  or  a  vessel 
overtook" — "their  heads  being  raised."* 

Not  one  of  these  parties  was  totally  under  the  water. 
Conant  translates  it  "  submerged."  He  tries  to  make 
them  rear  their  heads  after  being  "  submerged."  No  such 
thought  or  fact  is  in  the  Greek.  "  But  the  elevated  heads 
of  those  baptized  either  a  missile  reached  or  a  vessel  caj)- 
tured."  Though  these  parties  were  partly  immersed  the 
heads,  with  of  course  a  part  of  the  shoulders,  were  above 
the  water.  In  that  condition  some  were  shot  with  their 
missiles,  others  were  captured.  There  was  no  complete 
envelopment. 

2.  Plutarch  (Conant,  p.  11)  :  "A  bladder,  thou  may  est 
be  immersed  (baptized) ;  but  it  is  not  possible  to  thee  to 
sink."  t  The  Greek  reads,  "A  bladder,  thou  may  est  be 
baptized,  but  it  is  not  fated  to  thee  to  be  immersed." 
Drs.  Conant,  Campbell,  Carson,  Gale,  Graves,  all  use  the 

■••  Twv  de  ^aTTTiadivruv  tovc  avavEvovrag  rj  ^eXog  ecfSavev,  rj  ff;!(edia  Kare- 
7Mju6ave. 

t  A<7/cof  (ia-Tl'Cy  •  Avvm  6i  toi  bv  ■&£juor  eartv. 


264  BAPTISM. 

English  sink  for  the  Latin  immerse  in  its  Anglicized 
form,  and  Conant  conceals  the  truth  constantly  by  a 
play  upon  those  words.  Why  render  haptidzo  there  by 
immerse,  and  clanal,  which  always  means  immerse,  by 
the  English  word  sink  ?  The  bladder  was  baptized,  but 
would  not  go  under.  We  know  they  will  not  go  under 
of  themselves.  This  is  just  the  kind  of  classic  baptism 
as  the  other  preceding  it  in  Joseph  us,  save  that  the  man 
raersed  deeper  in  tlie  sea-water  than  the  bladder.  Neither 
was  enveloped,  covered. 

3.  Conant,  11,  12,  Ex.  25:  "The  soldiers  .  .  .  dipping 
(baptizing)  with  cups,  and  horns,  and  goblets,  from  great 
wine-jars  and  mixing-bowls."  Who  believes  the  cups, 
goblets,  and  horns  were  entirely  submerged  in  the  wine? 
But  there  are  some  strange  points  here.  Where  was  ever 
haptidzo  used  for  "dipping  horns  "or  anything  else?  We 
have  seen,  all  admit,  that  haptidzo  is  used  often,  commonly, 
for  becoming  drunk,  intoxicated,  etc.  Hence  it  reads, 
"The  soldiers  becoming  drunk  —  intoxicated — out  (ek) 
of  great  wine-jars,"*  etc.,  "with  cups  and  horns,  and 
goblets,"  "along  the  whole  way  were  drinking  to  one  an- 
other." The  ek,  "out  of,"  forbids  dip  as  the  meaning 
here. 

4.  Ihid.  18:  "And  already  becoming  immerged  (bap- 
tized) and  wanting  little  of  sinking,  some  of  the  pirates  at 
first  attempted  to  leave  (the  vessel)  and  get  aboard  their 
own  bark." 

(1)  Here  to  conceal  the  facts  so  patent  the  doctor  ren- 
ders haptidzo  by  "becoming  immerged,"  and  immerse,  in 
Greek,  he  renders  again  by  sink,  the  English  of  immerse. 
And  this  in  face  of  his  just  admission  and  statement  that 
haptidzo   implies   as  complete   sinking  where  the    parties 

*  Ot  arpariurat  (iairriCovreq  ta  ~iOo)i'  /ayci/uv. 


BAPTIDZO   IX    LATER    GREEK — COXANT.  265 

perish,  as  dunai,  contrary  to  Suicer,  Pasor,  Beza,  whom  A. 
Campbell  follows. 

(2)  The  Greek  reads,  '^Aiid  already  being  baptized  and 
wanting  little  of  being  immersed*  (katadunai),  some  of 
the  pirates  at  first  attempted  to  leave  (the  vessel)  and  get 
aboard  of  their  own  bark." 

(3)  If  the  baptidzo  immersed  the  vessel — completely 
enveloped  it — i.  e.  if  it  put  it  entirely  under  the  water — 
why  did  it  not  go  to  the  bottom  at  once,  as  all  vessels  do — 
ships — whenever  they  by  such  calamities  go  clean  under? 

(4)  Why  does  the  writer  say  that  although  the  vessel 
was  ^'already  baptized,"  yet  it  was  not  yet  ^'immersed," 
yet  '^  wanting  little  of  being  immersed."  Dr.  C.  will  not 
deny  that  immerse  is  the  literal  meaning  of  katadunai. 

(5)  Though  the  vessel  was  ^^  already  baptized,"  yet  the 
parties  are  consulting,  talking  together,  about  leaving  the 
ship.  How  could  this  occur  among  a  part  of  the  pirates  if 
the  vessel  had  "already  been  immersed" — wholly  envel- 
oped under  water? 

5.  Conant,  p.  20,  Ex.  42:  "^The  whole  sword  was 
warmed  with  blood  ^  (Homer)  ...  as  if  the  sword  were 
so  imbathed  (baptized)  as  to  be  heated."  This  is  a  later 
Greek  writer  commenting  on  the  ancient  Homer's  words, 
the  former  using  the  words  "warmed  with  blood,"  the 
latter  baptized  with  blood. 

(1)  Baptize  here  is  not  immersion. 

(2)  It  was  by  effusion — the  blood  gushing  out  on  the 
sword. 

(3)  Conant  then  commits  the  unpardonable  literary  sin 
of  rendering  Homer's  stronger  word,  ^'  hupethermanthce/' 
by  "warmed,"  and  the  tamer  critics  less  intense  word 
thermanthcenai  by  "heated"!     The  Greek  is,  "As  if  the 

*■  'lldfj  de  [iaTTriC,oixevo)v  Kal  Karadvvac  /aiKpov  aTzoXtLndvTuv. 


266  BAPTISM. 

sword  were  so  baptized  [with  blood — haimati]  as  to  be 
warmed.'^  *  Surely  the  blood  that  flowed  from  the  pierced 
head  of  Echelusf  did  not  immerse  ^Hhe  whole  sword/' 
It  is  a  clear  case  of  effusion  of  blood  on  the  sword. 

6.  Conant's  69th  Example,  p.  33,  is  his  strongest  for 
"dip."  "Casting  a  little  of  the  ashes  [of  the  burnt 
heifer]  into  a  fountain  and  dipping  (baptizing)  a  hyssop 
branch/'  etc.     In  this  case — 

(1)  Dr.  Conant  changes  the  ordinary  reading  of  the 
Greek  text,  which  can  not  be  allowed. 

(2)  Conant  admits  that  the  copyist  of  the  Greek  text 
has  been  guilty  of  "an  error  in  copying.''  He  thinks 
"the  common  reading"  of  the  Greek  J  shows  the  same 
thing.  But  he  renders  it  differently,  "  immerse,"  not  dip, 
by  indorsing  the  Latin  scholiast.  Unquestionably  the 
Greek  he  and  Bekker  make  is  wrong,  as  it  violates  the 
whole  tenor  of  Greek  usage.  His  own  Greek,  given  in 
the  note,  which  is  "the  common  reading,"  is,  "and  bap- 
tizing some  of  the  ashes  into  the  fountain;"  pouring  or 
immersing  them  into  the  fountain,  whichever  rendering 
you  prefer,  it  equally  suits  my  present  object.  It  is  not 
dip.  The  hyssop  is  not  the  object  of  baptidzo  by  this 
"common  reading."  And  were  it  so,  it  would  be  clear 
evidence  that  the  error  of  the  copyist  was  in  putting  it 
baptidzo  for  hapto. 

7.  Ibid.  22 :  "  He  did  not  plunge  in  (baptize)  the  sword, 
nor  sever  that  hostile  head ! "  The  Greek  is,  "  not  even 
to  sever  that  hostile  head."     Clearly  the  word  here  is  not 

■•••  Ticiv  6'  v7Te6Epfj.dvftrj  ^i<j)og  dijuart  .  .  .  ijr  re  -^epfiavdrivai. 

t  Homer's  II.  xxii,  line  476,  on  which  the  unknown  writer  com- 
ments, using  baptidzo.     Homer  never  uses  it. 

X  "Which  begins  thus :  BaTrricavTeg  te  koX  Trjq  r£(f>ag  ravTTjq  e'lg  Tzrfyi/v  — 
which  an  old  author  he  indorses  renders — ejusdemque  cineris  oliquantu- 
lutn  In  aquam  immcrgcntes.    But  this  Is  infinitely  different  from  dipping. 


BAPTIDZO   IN    LATER    GREEK — CONANT.  267 

*^  plunge  in,''  as  if  point  foremost,  but  edge  foremost,  to 
"sever  the  head"  from  the  body.  In  cutting  off  the  head 
no  one  plunges  in  a  sword  point  foremost.  We  know  how 
a  sword  is  used  in  cutting  off  a  man's  head.  Baptldzo 
here  expresses  (Chrysostom)  this  act.  Immersion,  en- 
velopment is  out  of  the  question. 

8.  Ibid.  23:  "And  that  the  immerged  (baptized)  ship 
beyond  all  hope  is  saved,  is  of  the  providence  of  God ; " 
"in  the  sudden  coming  as  of  storm  or  tempest."  Clearly 
this  "immerged  ship"  is  not  "immerged."  If  the  bap- 
tidzo  put  it  clear  under,  it  never  was  saved  or  could  be. 
It  is  baptized  by  the  waves  dashing  upon  it,  but  not  im- 
mersed. That  the  baptized  ship  "contrary  (or  against 
hope)  is  saved" — :zap  IX-tda.  Yet  C.  puts  it,  "beyond  all 
hope."  It  is  not  there.  Where  is  the  "all"  in  the 
Greek? 

9.  Conant,  p.  32:  "And  dipping  (baptizing)  his  hand 
into  the  blood,  he  set  up  a  trophy,  inscribing  it,"  etc. 

(1)  Suppose  we  were  to  accept  this  rendering,  it  does 
not  prove  their  theory  of  immersion ;  for  there  is  no  evi- 
dence from  their  rendering  that  complete  envelopment  of 
the  hand  in  the  human  blood  took  place. 

(2)  There  is  every  reason  to  suppose  it  did  not  take 
place,  for  who  would  immerse  their  entire  hand  in  blood 
merely  to  have  blood  on  a  finger  with  which  to  write  an 
inscription  on  a  trophy? 

(3)  It  is  long  after  Christ,  and  therefore  belongs  to  the 
later,  corrupted  Greek. 

10.  Ibid.  His  50th  Example,  pp.  23,  24,  is  more  than 
doubtful  as  to  a  total  immersion. 

11.  (Joseph  us  33) :  "  He  plunged  (baptized)  the  whole 
sword  into  his  own  neck." 

No  immergence,  no  total  envelopment  here. 


268  BAPTISM. 

12.  Ibid.  34:  ^'Immerse  (baptize)  it  (the  pessary)  into 
breast-milk  and  Egyptian  ointment/^  The  ancient  Egyp- 
tian pessary  or  '^blister-plaster'^  was  wholly  diiferent 
from  the  pessary  of  modern  science  and  wholly  different 
in  application.  It  was  compounded  of  "  honey,  turpen- 
tine, butter,  oil  of  lily  or  of  rose,  and  saffron,  each  one 
part,  with  sometimes  a  small  quantity  of  verdigris"*  and 
used  as  a  blister.  It  was  baptized  with,  or  wetted  par- 
tially in  the  ''  milk  of  a  woman  " — that  is  the  Greek,  f 
Immersion  was  not  necessary  nor  possible. 

13.  Ibid.  34.  His  71st  Example  is  rendered,  like  many 
others,  to  conceal  the  facts.  "  The  mass  of  iron  drawn 
red-hot'^  was  ''by  the  smiths'^  (plural),  and  is  ^'baptized 
with  water"  to  "quench  its  fiery  glow."  Such  a  large 
mass  of  iron,  red-hot,  is  not  plunged  into  water  to  be 
cooled.  It  is  against  plunge.  Such  "a  mass  of  red-hot 
iron  "  plunged  into  water  would  throw  quite  all  the  water 
out  and  all  over  the  smiths,  baptizing  them. 

14.  "Plunge  (baptize)  the  sword  into  the  enemy's 
breast."     No  total  envelopment  here  (p.  37,  ibid.). 

15.  Ibid.  38:  "Plunge  (baptize)  his  right  hand  in  his 
father's  neck."  The  hand  or  weapon  in  it  was  not  likely 
to  be  enveloped,  completely  submerged  in  his  father's 
neck. 

Conant,  p.  2,  Exam])le  2 :  "  But  most  of  them  (ships 
of  the  Romans),  when  the  prow  was  let  fall  from  on  high, 
being  submerged  (baptized)  became  filled  with  sea-water 
and  confusion." 

If  "  submerged "  how  could  the  people  become  con- 
fused and  the  vessel  fill  up  with  sea-water?  The  ships 
evidently  became  partially  overwhelmed,  sea-water  ran  in 

*  *Ef  ydXa  ywaiKoq.  ' 

t  Dunglison's  Med,  Dictionary,  p.  37. 


BAPTIDZO    IX    LATER    CiPvEEK COXANT.  2G9 

in  great  qiiaiitities,  and  the  Romans  became  confused 
thereby.  But  how  couhl  men  fighting  on  a  A^essel,  as 
they  did  in  that  day,  remain  on  deck  in  a  state  of  confu- 
sion or  nonconfusion  after  the  vessel  was  sunk  clear  under 
water,  ^^  being  submerged  ''  ? 

Now,  the  above  texts  are  all  copied  from  the  literal 
use  of  baptidzo  presented  by  Con  ant  (though  one  or  two 
at  least,  if  not  three  or  four  are  not  literal  cases),  clearly 
showing  that  even  in  classic,  yet  Iron-age  Greek  after 
baptidzo  came  to  mean  to  immerse,  it  still,  in  that  age, 
did  not  generally  or  often  apply  to  complete  immersions ; 
and  that  to  express  complete  immersion  they  generally 
supplied,  as  seen,  dunai,  hatadunai  to  express  that  idea. 

Another  point  is  clear,  that  wherever  baptidzo  does 
completely  immerse  a  living  object  it  perishes. 

That  *' whelm,"  ^^  overwhelm,"  and  such  uses  of  bap)- 
tidzo  point  to  affusion — the  element  descending,  falling  on 
the  object — may  be  seen  further  by  the  very  words  used, 
clearly  pointing  out  this  fact.  Take  from  Dr.  Conant  the 
following  examples : 

Page  79,  Example  162 :  "Achilles  Tatius :  For  that 
which,  of  a  sudden,  comes  all  at  once  and  unexpected, 
shocks  the  soul,  falling  on  it  unawares,  and  whelms  (bap- 
tizes)." *  Here,  first,  the  word  baptidzo  is  much  strength- 
ened with  a  preposition  far  stronger  than  merely  the 
word  uncompounded ;  second,  the  mode  is  defined — the  ele- 
ment that  baptizes  (katebaptize)  does  so  by  '^  falling  on  it." 
Where  is  the  dip,  where  the  plunge,  Avhere  the  sink  here  ? 

Page  66,  Example  136,  Dr.  Conant  quotes  Philo  :  "As 
though  reason  were  whelmed  (baptized)  by  the  things 
overlying  it."  f     Here  the  things  that  rest  or  fall  upon 

•*"  "A^vw  TzpoOTzea&v  koX  KarebaTTTice. 
t  Toiq  ETtiovat,  the  things  upon  it. 


270  BAPTISM. 

(epi)  the  reason,  "food  and  drink,"  baptize  it,  "resting 
upon  it.'' 

Tatius  (Conant,  p.  26,  Example  56)  :  "  The  blood  .  .  . 
boiling  up  through  intense  vigor,  often  overflows  the 
veins,  and  flooding  {perikludzo)  the  head  within,  whelms 
(baptizes)  the  passage  of  reason.''  Here  is  affusion,  not 
dipping. 


BxVPTIDZO    IX    PATRISTIC   GREEK.  271 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Baptidzo  in  Patristic  Greek. 

"We  introduce  baptism  among  the  fathers  by  citing 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  a.d.  190. 

'^  But  purity  is  to  think  purely.  And  indeed  the 
image ''^  of  the  baptism  [of  the  Bible]  was  handed  down 
from  Moses  to  the  poets  thus — 

^'  ^  Having  besprinkled  herself  with  water,  having  on 
her  body  clean  garments,  Penelope  comes  to  prayer.' f 
^  But  Telemachus,  .  .  .  having  washed  his  hands  at  the 
hoary  sea,  prays  to  Athene'  (Minerva).  This  custom 
(ethos)  of  the  Jews,  as  they  also  often  baptize  themselves 
upon  a  couch,  is  well  expressed  also  in  this  verse,  ^Be 
pure,  not  by  washing,  but  by  thinking.' "  X     Here — 

1.  Sprinkling  the  water  on  herself  before  prayer  was 
an  image  (eikon),  likeness,  of  the  baptism  taught  in  the 
Bible. 

2.  ^^  Sprinkled  herself  with  water."    The  word  is  com- 

■••■■  EiKojv,  image,  not  ovfiSoTiOv,  symbol,  but  image, 
t  Odyssey  iv,  759,  is  where  he  cites  Homer. 

X  Ayveia  6e  eon  ^povelv  bata  Kal  di)  Kal  ■q  ehiov  rov  (iaTTTicfiaroQ  eltj  av  Kot 
t)  t/c  M-uvceug  TrapadeSo/xevrj  rolg  TzoLr/ToiQ  o)6e  ttcjq. 

'H  &  vdpr/va/iiivjj  Kadapa  xpot  E'l/iar'  exovcra.     Odys.  iv,  759. 

'H  JleveXoTTf}  T7]v  kvx^v  Ipx^Tai. 

Tq2,ifiaxog  6e  .  .  . 

Xeipag  vi^dfievoq  Tro^i^g  dXog,  evx£t'  Adrjvr].     Odys.  ii,  261. 

'E^of  TovTo  'lovdaio)v,  6g  Kai  to  TToTikaKiq  kirl  Ko'irr)  /iaTrri^eadai. 

Ev  yovv  KCiKeivo  etprjTar 

"Icdt.  fij]  /iovrpu,  d?i.?ia  v6(p  KaBapoc.     Clemens  Alex,  i,  1352. 


272  BAPTISM. 

pounded  of  huder,  water,  and  raino,  to  sprinkle.  Liddell 
&  Scott's  Lexicon  renders  the  word  '^  to  pour  water  over 
one's  body."* 

3.  Washing  the  hands  at  the  sea  was  an  image  of  bap- 
tism.    Where  was  the  immersion  in  these  cases? 

4.  It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jew^s  to  "  baptize  often 
upon  a  (jouch  " — not  after  the  couch,  not  {apo  koiiaes)  from 
a  couch,  but  {epi  koitae)  "  upon  a  couch."  The  suggestion 
of  some  that  it  refers  to  purification  after  pollution  upon 
a  couch  is  far-fetched  and  against  the  grammatical  force  of 
the  words. 

5.  Clemens  precedes  the  sentence  with  these  words: 
^'  In  like  manner  they  say  it  becomes  those  who  have  washed 
themselves  (leloumenous)  to  go  forth  to  sacrifices  and  prayer 
pure  and  bright."  The  suggestion  of  Carson,  followed  by 
Elder  Wilkes,  makes  {ep'i  koitae)  " upon  a  couch"  refer 
to  sexual  relations.  But  both  Penelope  and  Telem- 
achus  were  preparing  for  prayers,  not  baptizing  because 
of  or  from  sexual  defilement,  neither  having  been  thus 
polluted.  Indeed  the  poets  knew  nothing  of  that  rite. 
The  custom  Clemens  refers  to  was  one  taught  not  merely 
by  Moses,  but  by  the  poets,  and  he  tells  us  what  it  was  as 
practiced  in  the  poets — they  sprinkled  themselves  with 
water.  And  here  he  uses  raino,  nipto,  louo,  and  haptidzo 
all  for  the  same  thing — baptism.  We  have  seen  in  the 
laver  argument  what  the  washing  of  the  Jews  was.f 

■•'■'Aovrpa  vdpdvacdai  xpoi  (Eur.  El.  157),  to  water,  to  sprinkle  with 
water,  to  pour  out  libations ;  77iid.,  to  bathe,  wash  oneself  (L,  &  S.  on 
same). 

tHervetus,  a  Greek,  who  translated  Clemens,  and  was  his  commen- 
tator, knowing  all  the  facts,  says,  "  The  Jews  washed  themselves,  not 
only  at  sacrifices  but  also  at  feasts,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  Clement 
says  that  they  purified  or  washed  upon  a  couch ;  that  is,  a  dining-couch 
or  triclinium.     To  this  Mark  refers,  chap,  vii,  and  Matthew,  chap.  xv. 


BAPTIDZO    IX    PATRISTIO   GREEK.  273 

BAPTISM   OF  THE  ALTAR. 

In  Origen,  on  John  i,  25,  we  read,  "  How  came  you 
to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come,  would  baptize, 
who  did  not  baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar  in  the  days 
(times)  of  Ahab,  although  it  needed  purification  [or  cleans- 
ing— loutroii\  in  order  that  it  might  be  burned  when  the 
Lord  should  be  revealed  by  fire;  for  this  [baptizing  the 
wood  upon  the  altar]  was  ordered  to  be  done  by  the 
priests."  * 

Now  let  us  cite  the  facts  referred  to  by  the  learned 
Origen,  born  only  some  eighty-three  to  eighty-five  years 
after  John  the  Apostle  died,  found  in  1  Kings  xviii, 
31-35,  38 :  ^^And  Elijah  took  twelve  stones,  according  to 
the  number  of  the  tribes  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  unto  whom 
the  word  of  the  Lord  came,  saying,  Israel  shall  be  thy 
Tertullian  refers  to  it  when  he  says,  '' Judaius  Israel  quotidie  lavat—- 
daily  washes." 

The  only  argument  relied  on  for  such  far-fetched  assumption  as 
that  of  Carson  is,  Clemens  had  page  1184,  nearly  two  hundred  pages 
apart — atto  zTjg  Kara  cvl^vyiav  Koirrjq  .  .  .  (iaTTTi^eadai — to  baptize  from  the 
couch  on  account  of  sexual  intercourse.  This  is  as  different  from  the 
other  as  day  is  from  night.  'Atto  is  not  ettI,  as  Carson  assumes.  Koiry 
is  not  KoiTf]^,  much  less  is  Kara  avC,vyiav,  which  latter  is  the  word  for  sex- 
ual intercourse.  "  Baptize  cnrb  from  a  dead  body,"  airb  "  from  the  mar- 
ket "  (Mark  vii,  4) ;  "  sprinkle  airb  from  an  evil  conscience  " ;  "  Baptize 
yourselves  (nrd  from  anger,  malice,  covetousness,"  etc.  (Chrysostom). 
That  is  Greek.  But  were  it  etzI,  it  would  be  infinitely  different.  Sexual 
intercourse  is  not  expressed  by  ettI  koItij  any  where  in  the  world.  In 
Origen's  rendering  of  Genesis,  Jacob  sat  upon  his  couch — tTtl  ryv  koIttjv. 
Opera  Omnia,  vol.  2,  p.  145,  ed.  1862. 

*  Origen :  Tl66ev  Se  vfilv  ■neTriaTevrat  'Rliav  (^aTrriaeiv  rbv  eXevadjuevov, 
oi'd^:  ra  ettl  to,  tov  ^vGLaarripiov  ^iiTia,  Kara  rovg  -rov  'Axaab  xpovovg^  deojueva 
?.ovTpbv^  Iva  eKKavdri,  ETCL^avhroq  kv  Tzvpl  rov  Kvpiov,  (^anTiaavrog ;  eTriKel- 
everai  yap  roiq  lepevai  tovto  TTOiyaai,  ov  [lovov  aiza^^  Myei  ydp^  etc.  ...  6 
Tolvov  fi?)  avrbg  (SaTTrioag  rore^  k.  r.  A.  irug  Kara  ra  vrrb  rov  Ma?.axiov  ?.ey6jueva 
ETztdrjixTjaag  fSaTrrli^eiv  'ifxeTiXe  [Orige7iis  Oj^era  Omnia,  Toinus  Quartus,  vol. 
4,  p.  231, 1862). 
18 


274  baptis:n[. 

name:  And  witli  the  stones  he  built  an  altar  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord;  and  he  made  a  trench  about  the 
uitar,  as  great  as  would  contain  two  measures  of  seed. 
And  he  put  the  wood  in  order,  and  cut  the  bullock  in 
pieces,  and  laid  him  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four  bar- 
rels with  water,  and  pour  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice,  and  on 
the  wood.  And  he  said,  Do  it  the  second  time.  And  they 
did  it  the  second  time.  And  he  said,  Do  it  the  third  time. 
And  they  did  it  the  third  time.  And  the  water  ran  round 
about  the  altar;  and  he  filled  the  trench  also  with  water. 
.  .  .  Then  the  fire  of  the  Lord  fell,  and  consumed  the 
burnt  sacrifice,  and  the  wood,  and  the  stones,  and  the  dust, 
and  licked  up  the  water  that  was  in  the  trench.^' 

Basil,  A.D.  310,  says  of  this  event,  "  Elias  showed  the 
power  of  baptism  on  the  altar.  .  .  .  When  the  water  .  .  . 
was  for  the  third  time  poured  on  the  altar,  the  fire  began. 
.  .  .  The  Scriptures  hereby  show  that  through  baptism,'' 
etc.    Other  fathers  speak  of  it  as  baptism.     This  is  enough. 

Notice  now — 

1.  It  was  "the  wood  upon  the  altar"  that  was  *•  bap- 
tized.'' 

2.  Elijah  had  the  priests  who  brought  the  water  to 
"pour  it  on  the  burnt  sacrifice  and  on  the  wood." 

3.  Origen  says  they  "  baptized  the  wood  on  the  altar." 

4.  Basil  says  he  showed  the  power  of  baptism  on  the 
altar,  "  when  the  water  .  .  .  was  poured  on  the  altar." 

But  immersion  ingenuity  is  not  wanting  even  in  so 
clear  a  case  as  this.  A.  Cauipbell  suggests,  following  the 
astute  Carson,  tbat  twelve  barrels  of  water  "  overwhelmed  " 
the  altar,  submerged,  "  as  it  were,"  the  altar.  Indeed !  Let 
us  see  into  this. 

1.  It  was  an  altar  built  of  stones  on  the  top  of  a  moun- 
tain— Carmel. 


BAPTIDZO    IN    PATRISTIC    (aiKEK.  Z  <  .J 

2.  It  was  during  the  great  drouth — every  thing  burn- 
ing up. 

3.  Wood  was  then  laid  upon  the  altar  of  stones,  enough 
for  an  ox  to  be  laid  thereupon. 

4.  A  slaughtered  ox  was  placed  upon  the  altar  thus 
built,  '^on  the  wood."  Now,  how  could  this  altar,  or  the 
wood  on  it,  be  immersed  ?  Where  is  the  '^  plunge ''  ? 
Where  is  the  immerse,  sink  in?  Where  is  the  "dip"? 
Where  is  the  action,  the  specific  action?  Where  is  the 
mode?  the  "burial,"  cover  up?     But  we  are  not  done. 

o.  No  such  vessel  as  our  barrel  was  known  then.  The 
word^  in  the  Hebrew  (kad)  never  means  barrel.  Except 
tlie  place  where  the  widow  had  a  measure  of  meal  hid 
away  in  a  barrel,  and  this  place,  it  is  never  rendered  bar- 
rel, and  in  that  place  it  means  pitcher — enough  meal  to 
make  a  little  cake  only  being  hid.  No  lexicon,  no  ancient 
version  ever  rendered  it  barrel.  No  scholar  will  ever  con- 
tend that  it  has  any  such  meaning.  The  ancient  Greek 
version  has  it  bucket,  water-pot,  or  pail.  Gesenius,  Fiirst, 
and  all  others  define  it,  "bucket,  pail,  both  for  drawing 
water  and  carrying  it."  Gregory  Nazianzen  expresses  it 
exactly,  alluding  to  this  baptism :  "  Cast  [the  water]  over 
it  from  water-pots."  Four  pitchers  or  rather  buckets  of 
water  were  poured  on  this  altar  and  the  ox  three  times 
repeated.  Before  the  second  or  third  bucket  could  be 
poured  on,  the  first  would  run  off.  Where  is  the  "over- 
whelm"?    But— 

6.  The  little  trench  dug  around  the  altar  had  to  be 
filled  with  extra  water.     "  And  he  filled  the  trench  also 

*  "^5  kad,  ^  t'^  kadim,  pitchers,  never  means  barrel,  and  is  never  so 
defined  in  any  version  of  antiquity,  or  in  any  lexicon  we  ever  saw.  It 
occurs  in  Genesis  xxiv,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  20,  43,  45,  46,  where  Rebekah 
draws  water  out  of  a  well  with  one;  so  Judges  vii,  16,  19,  20;  Ecclesi' 
astes  xii,  6,  "pitcher";  1  Kings  xvii,  12,  14,  16,  "barrel." 


27(j  BAPTISM. 

with  water''  (1  Kings  xviii,  35).    The  trench  held  (sabhib) 
one  and  a  half  peck  measure. 

7.  After  the  water  had  been  poured  on,  the  trench 
filled,  still  "dusf  was  found  under  and  about  the  altar. 
There  could  have  been  no  overwhelming  with  water,  there- 
fore. The  fire  consumed  the  dust,  and  licked  up  the  water 
that  was  in  the  trench.  Tiiese  are  the  facts.  Twelve 
buckets  of  water,  only  four  at  a  time,  or  one  at  a  time  till 
four  were  poured  on,  then  a  pause,  then  repeated,  never 
immersed,  dipped,  or  plunged  the  altar,  nor  the  wood  on 
it.  All  together  doubled,  quadrupled,  would  not  do  it. 
They  did  baptize  the  wood,  the  altar.  Wilkes,  dodging  all 
the  above  facts  in  the  debate  (p.  576),  urges  for  "an  over- 
whelming. That  altar  and  that  victim  were  as  drenched, 
or  as  wet,  or  soaked  with  water''  as  if  "  immersed."  Alas, 
how  was  he  drenched  with  water?  It  was  "poured."  Tlie 
wood  was  baptized,  not  "  as  it  were  "  "  overwhelmed."  It 
was  baptized.  O,  but  Wilkes  says,  "  a  man  comes  out  of 
the  rain,  and  we  say  he  is  drenched."  "  It  means  an  over- 
whelming." Not  exactly.  No  one  speaks  of  a  man  merely 
drenched  in  rain  as  overwhelmed.  But  what  was  the  spe- 
cific water,  the  mode  of  his  drenching?  He  is  baptized; 
you  say  drenched.  It  is  a  literal  act,  a  literal  drenching, 
a  literal  person  and  rain ;  no  metaphor  here.  How  was  he 
baptized?  "The  water  was  poured,"  says  Mr.  Wilkes. 
Yes,  and  so  baptized  the  object.  Origen  is  commenting 
on  John  i,  25,  26,  where  they  thought  Messiah  would  bap- 
tize. It  is  of  baptism  practiced  under  Christ  he  is  dis- 
coursing. It  is  literal,  therefore.  The  water  was  poured 
out  of  water-pitchers  on  the  wood  that  was  on  the  altar 
of  stones,  on  the  dry  and  parched  heights  of  Carmel.  As 
immersionists  insist  so  earnestly  that  "  baptidzo  ahvays 
means  to  dip,"  "  expressing  nothing  but  mode,"  let  them 


BAPTIDZO    IN    rATRLSTIC    GREEK.  2n 

apply  '^dip^'  here.  How  came  you  to  think  Elias  would 
dip  .  .  .  who  did  not  dip  the  wood  uj)on  the  altar?  in  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  literal  water  was  literally  poured  by 
"literal"  men,  out  of  "literal"  water-pitchers,  upon  the 
literal  wood  of  the  literal  altar,  baptizing  it? 


No  one  case  of  baptism  in  all  history  has  been  so  per- 
verted by  immersionists  as  the  case  of  Novatian,  a.  d. 
251.  After  I  published  the  original  Greek  in  Louisville 
Debate  (p.  590),  with  a  literal  translation,  it  is  pleasant 
to  see  Dr.  Varden,  of  Kentucky,  publishing  to  his  Bap- 
tist brethren  a  translation,  word  for  word  as  my  own,  tell- 
ing them  how  incorrect  were  the  partisan  uses  made  by 
false  renderings  of  this  passage.  Here  is  a  literal  render- 
ing of  the  passage :  "  To  him,  indeed,  the  origin  [or  au- 
thor] of  his  profession  was  Satan,  who  entered  into  and 
dwelt  in  him  a  long  time ;  who,  being  assisted  by  the  ex- 
orcists, while  attacked  with  an  obstinate  disease,  and  being 
supposed  at  the  point  of  death,  received  it  [baptism]  in 
the  bed  on  which  he  lay,  by  being  sprinkled — if  indeed  it 
is  proper  to  say  that  such  [a  wicked]  person  received  it,"  -'' 
baptism. 

1.  Not  a  single  doubt  is  thrown  on  the  mode  of  this 
baptism.     "He  received  it" — elahen. 

2.  It  was  by  sprinkling. 

3.  When  he  recovered  he  never  was  rebaptized,  never 

*'i2  ye  acpopfi^  rov  Triarevaai  yeyovev  6  Garavag^  (poirijaag  elg  avrov  koL 
oiKTjGaQ  kv  avTO)  xpofov  Ifcavov,  be  (iorjdohfXEVog  virb  eTTopKiaruv,  v6cfo)  TrepcrreGov 
XarsTTTj^  Kal  aTcoaaveiadat  boov  ovdewoj  vojui^dfievoc,  ev  avrfj  tt]  ii?/ivrj  ?'}  iKeiro, 
Trepix^deig  llaBev  ei  ye  XPV  ^^y^i-v  tov  el?.jj(j)evai.  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Hist., 
b.  vi,  chap,  xliii,  p.  401,  sec.  15 ;  Recensuit  Echcardus  Burton,  Oxonii, 
etc.,  1838,  vol.  1. 


278  BAPTISM. 

was  asked  to  do  so,  nor  complained  of  by  any  one  for  not 
doing  so.  Had  any  doubt  existed  as  to  the  mode  of  his 
baptism  they  could  readily  have  baptized  him. 

4.  If  baptism  is  immersion,  how  could  they  say,  "  He 
received  immersion  by  being  sprinkled  !  '^ 

Scott  (immersionist)  copies  it  from  Baptist  sources 
thus,  "  He  received  baptism,  being  sprinkled  with  water 
on  the  bed  where  he  lay,  if  that  can  be  called  baptism ! '' 
No  such  phrase  as  the  last  occurs  in  the  Greek.  The  ton 
toiouton  is  masculine,  and  refers  to  the  wicked  person,  not 
to  baptism,  as  the  merest  tyro  in  Greek  can  see. 

As  immersionists  have  so  perversely  quoted  the  action 
of  a  council  on  this — Neo  Csesarea,  Canon  12th — we  quote 
the  favorite  immersionist  historian,  Neander  (vol.  1,  p. 
338,  revised  edition  of  Torrey,  1872):  ''Its  object  [the 
ecclesiastical  law]  was  simply  to  exclude  from  the  spirit- 
ual order  those  who  had  been  induced  to  receive  baptism 
without  true  repentance,  conviction,  and  knowledge,  in 
the  momentary  agitation  excited  by  the  fear  of  death. 
In  Novatian's  case  every  apprehension  of  this  kind  was 
removed  by  his  subsequent  life."  Again,  as  to  the  law 
(Canon  12th,  a.d.  314)  it  says,  ''After  it  had  been  here 
declared  that  a  person  baptized  in  sickness  could  not  be 
consecrated  as  a  presbyter,  it  was  assigned  as  a  reason, 
'  that  such  faith  did  not  spring  from  free  conviction,  but 
was  forced/  "  And  "  an  exception  was  made,  viz.  unless 
it  might  be  permitted  on  account  of  his  subsequent  zeal 
and  faith. '^ 

We  now  give  the  Canon  12th  of  Neo  Csesarea:  "If 
any  one  be  enlightened  [i.  e.  baptized]  during  sickness 
(v<y<j-a;v)j  he  Can  not  be  advanced  to  the  priesthood,  for  his 
faith  is  not  of  a  settled  purpose,  but  of  necessity,  unless 
indeed  perhaps  this  defect  is  overlooked  on  account  of  his 


BAPTIDZO    IX    rATRlSTIC    GUEEK.  279 

subsequent  diligence  and  faith,  and  tiu'oiigli  the  scarcity 
of  men." 

Ambrose ;  "  He  who  wished  to  be  purified  with  a  typ- 
ical baptism  (typlco  baptismatl)  was  sprinkled'*^  with  the 
blood  of  a  lamb,  by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop." 

Cyrill,  of  Alexandria,  on  Isaiah  iv,  4:  "  We  have  been 
baptized  not  with  mere  water,  nor  yet  with  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  [in  the  water  of  sprinkling],  but  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  etc.  Here  the  sprinkling  of  Numbers  xix,  13, 
18,  22 ;  Hebrews  ix,  13,  quoted  also,  are  baptisms. 

Jerome,  a.d.  385,  on  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25:  ^^^Then  will 
I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you.'  So  that  upon  those 
who  believe  and  are  converted  from  error  I  might  pour 
out  the  clean  water  of  baptism." 

PATRISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Here  this  most  accurate  and  wise  of  the  fathers,  and 
most  learned  of  all  the  Latin  fathers,  held  Ezekiel  xxxvi, 
25,  to  be  water  baptism,  just  as  Cyprian,  A.D.  251,  did. 

Cyrill,  again,  426:  '^He  will  make  the  early  and  the 
latter  rain  to  come  down  upon  you  as  of  old.  .  .  .  (Joel 
ii,  23,  25).  There  has  been  given  to  us,  as  in  rain,  the 
living  water  of  holy  baptism." 

Sulpicius  Severus,  a.d.  403:  '^Remember  that  thou 
hast,  under  the  hallowed  dew  of  the  font  and  the  laver, 
been  sealed  with  the  chrism.'' 

The  Centuriator's  (quoting  Socrates)  Hist.  Eccles.,  vii, 
17,  tells  of  a  font  "  out  of  which  the  water  is  poured  upon 
those  baptized."  f 

''^  Adspergehatur. 

tBaptizato  aqua  superfusa  .  .  .  Aquam  in  mio  alveo  Jitd  .  .  .  effiuxert 
cxisthnarei^  alveo  hapHsferii  etc.  .  .  .  aqna  rursus  2ye7iih(s  cvanmt  (Soc. 
vii,  17). 


280  BAPTISM. 

Constantine  the  Great  was  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

Cladovius,  a.d.  499,  king  of  the  Franks,  was  sprink- 
led in  his  baptism. 

Germadius,  of  Marseilles,  a.d.  490,  said,  "  The  person 
baptized  was  either  sprinkled  (aspergitur)  or  dipped  (intin- 
gitur)J' 

Lactantius,  a.d.  325:  '^  So  likewise  he  might  save  the 
gentiles  by  baptism;  that  is,  by  sprinkling  the  purifying 
water.^^  * 

Cyrill  treated  both  Isaiah  i,  16  and  Leviticus  viii,  6,  7, 
both  wash  and  sprinkle  water,  as  baptism. 

Ambrose  baptized  Theodosius  the  Great  by  sprinkling. 

Hilarius  said,  "There  are  not  wanting  daily  sick 
persons  who  are  to  be  baptized." 

The  Praeter  Ariontheus  was  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

Tertullian  :  "  These  two  baptisms  he  poured  forth  i'rom 
the  Avound  of  his  pierced  side."  f 

Ambrose:  "Whence  is  baptism  unless  from  the  cross 
of  Christ?": 

John  of  Damascus :  "  The  baptism  of  blood  and  mar- 
tyrdom by  which  Christ  suffered  himself  to  be  baptized 
for  us."  § 

Origen  and  Athanasius  held  to  the  same. 

Origen  on  Luke  xii,  50 :  "  For  Christ  shed  his  blood," 
etc.  "  For  it  is  the  baptism  of  blood  alone  that  renders  us 
more  ])ure  than  the  baptism  of  water.  ^I  have  a  baptism, 
etc'  You  see,  therefore,  that  he  called  the  shedding  of 
his  blood  baptism." 

All  the  fathers  of  these   centuries  refer   the   baptism 

'^Sic  etiam  gentes  baptismo,  id  est,  purifici  roris  perfuaione  salvaret 

tDuo  baptismus.     Paris  ed.  1634,  pp.  35-37. 

t  Unce  sit  baptisma  nisi  cle  crucc  Christi  ?     I,  356. 

§  To  (3dTTTiafj,a  6'  al/xaro^  kol  /uaprvpiov  b  koX  6  ;:(picrTog  vrcep  tjjuuv  efioTr- 


BAPTIDZO    IN    PATRISTIC   GREEK.  281 

just  named  to  his  crucifixion,  to  the  shedding  of  his  blood 
and  the  water  from  his  side,  and  not,  as  immersionists  and 
some  modern  lexicons,  to  his  sufferings,  e.  g.  in  the 
garden,  etc. 

Kuth^s  Reliquis  Sacrse,  iii,  489 :  ^^  So  that  he,  expect- 
ing to  die,  asked  to  receive  the  water  .  .  .  baptism.  And 
he  baptized  him  by  sprinkling  in  the  couch  where  he 
lay/'  *  This  is  in  almost  the  same  words  of  the  learned 
Eusebius.  Note,  ^'He  baptized  him.^'  It  was  by  sprink- 
ling the  water  on  him.  Notice,  it  do  n't  say  he  sprinkled 
him — "he  baptized  him  by  sprinkling  him." 

Tertullian  is  emphasized  a  great  deal  by  immersionists, 
and  indeed  he  is  the  first  man  in  all  the  world  who  names 
dipping  or  immersion  for  baptism.  But  it  was  by  three 
immersions,  the  parties  naked.  But  lie  supports  affu- 
sion as  well.  His  facts  show  that  they  stood  them  in 
water  to  be  baptized  very  often,  the  baptism  being  by 
affusion,  but  in  water  to  "imbibe''  the  "mighty  grace  of 
water."  He  says,  "Notf  that  I  deny  that  the  divine  ben- 
efit ...  is,  in  every  way,  sure  to  such  as  are  on  the  point 
of  entering  the  water;  but  Avhat  we  have  to  labor  for  is 
that  it  maybe  granted  to  us  to  attain  that  blessing;  for 
who  will  grant  to  you,  a  man  of  so  faithless  repentance, 
one  single  sprinkling  of  the  water  whatever? "J 

Again,  on  the  question  of  whether  the  twelve  apostles 
were  l)aptized  or  not,  he  urges,  "  Others  make  the  sugges- 
tion— forced  enough  to  be  sure — 'that  the  apostles  then 
served  the  term  of  baptism  when,  in  their  little  ship,  they 
were  sprinkled  [adspersi]  and  covered  with  the  waves;  that 
Peter  also  was    mersed    enough   [satis  mersum']  when  he 

* 'Ei^  avTTi  TTJ  K?uo7i  i]  e.KELTo  -nepixvdevra  drjdev  eOaTrn^ev. 
t  Tertullian,  Repentance,  vi,  267. 
+  De  Foeniten.  chap.  vi. 


2S'l  BAPTLSM. 

walked  on  the  sea/  It  is,  however,  as  I  think,  one  thing 
to  be  sprinkled  [adspergl — as  were  the  eleven],  or  inter- 
cepted by  the  violence  of  the  sea  [as  was  Peter] ;  another 
thing  to  be  baptized  in  obedience  to  the  discipline  of 
religion."  "  Now,  whether  they  were  baptized  in  any 
manner  whatever,  or  whether  they  continued  unwashed 
{illoti)/'  etc. 

1.  Here,  though  some  parties  "enter  the  [baptismal] 
waters,"  they  do  it  from  superstitious  ideas  of  its  virtue, 
but  are  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

2.  Had  the  eleven  received  the  sprinkling  water  volun- 
tarily, in  obedience  to  the  discipline  of  religion,  it  would 
have  served  for  baptism,  in  his  estimation. 

3.  Tertullian  uses  (KUperc/o,  lavo,  Hugo,  perfiuido,  as 
well  as  mcrgo,  for  baptism,  repeating  adspcrgo,  sprinkle,  a 
number  of  times. 

BAFnSM  WITH  TEARS — WITH    BI>()OD. 

4.  The  water  and  blood  shed  from  Christ's  side  were 
"  baptisms."  Surely  the  water  that  was  shed  from  the  side 
of  Christ  was  not  a  dipping.  The  blood  that  he  shed  did 
not  dip  him.  Yet  Origen,  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  Athan- 
asius,  John  of  Damascus,  all  held  them  to  be  baptisms. 
So  did  the  Syrian  fathers. 

Eusebius's  Eccles.  Hist.,  a.d.  324,  b.  iii,  ch.  23,  records 
that  a  backslider  was  overtaken  by  the  aged  John  the 
Evangelist  and  was  reclaimed  thus:  "Then  trembling,  lu 
lamented  bitterly,  and  embracing  the  old  man  [John]  as  he 
came  up,  attempted  to  plead  for  himself  with  his  lamenta- 
tions, as  much  as  he  was  able,  as  if  baptized  a  second  time 
with  his  own  tears." '^ 

••■  So  also  the  old  Latin  version  of  Eusebius,  lacJirymis  denuo  haj^tiz- 
aivr,  est. 


BAPTIDZO    IN    PATIUSTIC    GREEK.  283 

John  of  Damascus  reckons  seven  baptisms,  the  last 
'^seventh,  that  which  is  by  blood  and  martyrdom,  with 
which  Christ  himself  for  us  was  baptized." 

Hilary,  speaking  of  baptism,  says,  '^That  which  by 
suffering  of  martyrdom  will  wash  away  [sin]  with  faithful 
and  devoted  blood." 

Athanasius,  fourth  century,  says,  '^  For  it  is  proper  to 
know  that,  in  like  manner,  the  fountain  of  tears  by  bap- 
tism cleanses  man."  Again,  ^'  Three  baptisms,  cleansing 
away  all  sin  whatsoever  God  has  bestowed  on  the  nature 
of  man.  I  speak  of  that  of  water;  and  again,  that  by  the 
witness  of  one's  own  blood;  and,  thirdly,  that  by  tears, 
with  which,  also,  the  harlot  was  cleansed."  Chrysostom 
holds  the  same. 

PATKISTIC    BAPTISM. 

Will  our  immersion  friends  tell  us  how  a  man  is  dipped 
in  his  own  blood?  Will  they  explain  how  a  man  is  dip- 
ped in  his  own  tears?  Will  they  resort  to  the  metaphor- 
ical, and  say  ^^they  were  as  it  were"  overwhelmed  with 
grief  or  suffering?  That  will  not  serve  for  an  explana- 
tion. 

1.  They  are  not  metaphorical,  but  real  baptism. 

2.  Tliey  were  held  to  be  sufficient  baptisms  by  those 
most  learned  of  all  the  fathers. 

3.  Even  if  we  were  to  assume  the  absurd  position  tluit 
they  were  metaphorical  baptisms,  all  metaphors  are  based 
on  realities,  and  the  one  must  correspond  in  the  main 
points  to  the  other.  If  only  dipping  is  baptism,  shedding 
tears,  shedding  one's  blood  on  himself,  can  not  change  lit- 
eral dip  into  metaphorical  pour  or  sprinkle. 

But  samples  from  the  flithers  are  enough,  and  these  are 


284  BAPTISM. 

given.  We  do  not  regard  the  views  of  the  fathers,  espe- 
cially after  superstitions  came  in  like  a  flood,  as  of  much 
importance.  Their  testimony  as  to  facts  are  more  valua- 
ble by  an  infinite  degree.  We  have  given  these  mainly 
to  offset  the  assertions  of  immersionists  as  to  the  views  of 
the  fathers. 


FACTS   ON   THE    HISTORY   OF   BAPTISM. 

1.  While  water  baptism  originated  in  the  universal 
symbolism  of  water,  with  innocence,  purity  as  the  way  to 
innocency,  immersion  originated  in  supersitious  views  of 
the  efficacy  of  the  baptismal  waters.  This  is  seen  in  the 
virtue  attributed  to  lustrations  or  wasliings  by  all  ancient 
nations.*  Ovid  says,  ''  Our  old  men  believe  that  all  wick- 
edness and  all  manner  of  evil  may  be  removed  by  purifi- 
cation.'' Again,  the  Latins  held,  "All  disorder  of  the 
soul  is  washed  away  by  purification  of  this  kind.'^t  Ter- 
tullian,  Dc  Batismo,  says,  "At  the  sacred  rites  of  Isis, 
or  Mithra,  they  are  initiated  by  a  washing  (lavacro); 
they  expiate  villas,  houses,  temples,  and  whole  cities,  by 
sprinkling  with  water  carried  around.  Certainly  they  are 
baptized  (tinguntur)  in  the  Apollinarian  and  Eleusonian 
rites,  and  they  say  they  do  this  to  obtain  regeneration,  and 
to  escape  the  punishment  of  their  perjuries.  Also  among 
the  ancients,  whoever  had  stained  himself  with  murder  ex- 
piated himself  with  purifying  water.''  Hence,  T.  tells  us 
of  the  "medical  virtues"  water  "imbibed"  under  the  con- 
secration of  the  priest  in  his  day.     "  How  mighty  is  the 

*  See  Demosthenes  on  the  Crown  ;  Diogenes  Lser.  222 ;  Plutarch  on 
Diogenes;  Ovid's  Met.,  lib.  xiv,  950 ;  iv,  478;  Jer.  xi,  23;  Porphyry  of 

the  Egyptians :   Tplg  rijq  ^fiipag  ahlovaovro  ^y;t:pw. 

tOmnts  ejusmodi  peturhatio  animi  placaiione  ahluaiiir. 


BAPTIDZO    IN    PATraSTIC    GTwEEK.  285 

grace  of  water ! "  '^ All  waters,  therefore,  ...  do,  after 
invocation  of  God,  attain  the  sacramental  power  of  sanc- 
tification.  .  .  .  They  imbibe  at  the  same  time  the  power 
of  sanctifying."* 

ORIGIN   OF   IMMERSION. 

Theophylact  says  of  those  immersed,  "  For  as  he  who  is 
immersed  in  the  waters  and  baptized  is  surrounded  on  all 
sides  by  the  waters,^'  etc.f  Such  party  —  "bathing  the 
whole  body,  while  he  who  simply  receives  water  [by  affu- 
sion] is  not  wholly  wetted  on  all  places.^'  X 

Here  you  see  that  by  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  the 
virtue  of  baptismal  water  was  established,  as  Neander 
shows  abundantly  in  his  history,  aside  from  our  facts  from 
different  sources  mainly. 

Dr.  Gale  quotes  Reland  to  prove  that  the  Mohammedan 
custom  was  that  "  the  water  must  *  touch  every  hair  of 
the  body,  and  the  whole  skin  all  over'  .  .  .  This  manner 
of  washing  the  whole  body  is  necessary  in  order  to  puri- 
fication" in  specified  cases  (Wall  ii,  97). 

1.  Up  to  these  times  mode  never  entered  into  the  con- 
troversy of  baptism.  It  was  the  motive,  the  question  of 
sincerity  or  insincerity  alone  that  was  involved,  as  in  No- 
vatian.  But  now  in  Cyprian's  day,  middle  of  the  third 
century,  the  quantity  of  water,  the  touching  of  all  parts 
by  the  water,  began  to  attract  attention.  If  any  part  was 
untouched,  sin  might  lurk  there.    Hence — 

3.  Whenever  the  cleansing  efficacy  of  the  water  was 

*De  Bap.,  chap,  v,  236,  vol.  1. 

t  Conant,  Bapiizein,  pp.  22-3. 

X  Conant,  104,  for  the  Greek,  6?iov  to  eu/ua  I3pex(jv,  wetting  the  whole 
body,  while  he  who  merely  receives  the  water — v-ypaivo/j.evov,  hugraino- 
menon — water  sprinkled,  sprinkled  with  water. 


28()  BAPTISM. 

established  copious  affusions  of  water  in  baptism  followed. 
Then  the  insertion  of  the  party  "deep  in  the  Avater" — up 
to  the  arms  and  neck  sometimes  followed— that  the  sanc- 
tifying grace  might  be  "imbibed,"  while  water  was  copi- 
ously poured  on  the  head  as  the  baptismal  rite. 

4.  As  yet  mode  never  entered  into  the  essentialness  or 
validity  of  baptism.  The  point  was  to  have  every  part 
touched  by  the  water.  In  the  extract  from  Maim  on  ides 
this  superstition  is  seen  among  Jews  as  well  as  among  the 
fathers.  Had  the  candidate  been  dipped  repeatedly — im- 
mersed completely  a  hundred  times — they  would  have 
held  it  invalid  for  baptism  had  the  subject  been  so  enrobed 
as  to  prevent  the  water  from  reaching  his  person.  Even 
as  a  true  symbolism  this  Avould  be  correct,  showing  not 
mode  or  action,  but  contact  of  the  pure  water  constitutes 
the  baptism. 

Tertullian  shows  where  parties  were  mersed  in  water 
thus ;  then  the  baptism  follows :  "A  man  is  mersed  {mer- 
sus)  in  water,  and  amid  the  utterance  of  some  few  words 
is  baptized  {tingatur),  and  then  rises  again,''  etc. 

Augustine,  next  to  Jerome  the  most  learned  of  Latin 
fathers,  is  thus  cited  by  Archbishop  Kendrick  on  Bap- 
tism :  "  Unless  wheat  be  ground  and  sprinkled  with  water, 
it  can  not  come  to  that  form  which  is  called  bread.  So 
you,  also,  were  first  ground,  as  it  were,  by  mystic  exor- 
cisms. [See  the  superstitions  now.]  Then  was  added 
baptism :  Ye  were  as  it  were  sprinkled,  that  ye  might 
come  to  the  form  of  bread."*  On  this  the  Arch- 
bishop says,  "  St.  Augustine  remarks  [quoting  the  above — 
Ssprinkled  with  water ']  .  .  .  This  being  addressed  gener- 
ally to  the  faithful,  most  of  whom  were  solemnly  baptized, 
leads  us  to  infer  that  even  in  solemn  baptism  aspersion 

■■'•  Sermon  ccxxviii,  ad  Inf.  de  Sacram.  1417. 


BAPTTDZO    IN    PATrvlSTIC    (JREKK.  2<^7 

was  often  used,  water  being  sprinkled  on  the  candidate 
while  he  stood  deeply  immersed''  (Kendrick  on  Bap.,  p. 
156,  ed.  1852). 

We  quote  the  above  the  more  because  the  Catholics 
have  been  so  misquoted  on  this  question,  Bossuet's  Jesuit- 
ical statements  being  relied  on  as  if  worthy  of  regard. 

Hence  Robinson,  the  great  Baptist  hero  of  history, 
says,  "A  Greek  baptism,  where,  beside,  trine-immersion, 
snperfnsion  is  practiced,  or  a  baptism  where  the  laver  was 
too  small,  and  where  the  body  was  immersed  in  the  laver, 
and  the  head  was  immersed  by  superfusion  "  in  the  days  of 
8t.  Lawrence  and  Strabo.  Hist.  Bapt.,  p.  108.  '^Im- 
mersed by  superfusion 'M !  How  absurd!  He  cites  St. 
Lawrence  on  those  who  immersed,  yet  baptized  by  pour- 
ing— ''  superfusion" ;  e.  g.  the  party  "  was  immersed  in  the 
waters"  while  the  priest  copiously  ^'  poured  the  water  upon 
his  head";*  and  this  often  occurred.  In  cases  often  the 
laver  was  too  small  where  they  immersed  to  submerge  the 
whole  man,  and  in  such  cases  where  "  the  head  could  not 
be  mersed,"  "the  water  was  administered  by  pouring,  the 
rest  of  the  body  by  immersion,y  so  that  no  part  of  the  man 
slionld  be  without  the  sacred  washing."  In  other  cases 
"  they  simply  poured  the  water  on  the  heads  of  those  to  be 
baptized."  X 

5.  The  first  time  merslon  appears  or  immersion  as  a  re- 
ligious rite  is  in  those  superstitious  days.  Tertullian  is 
the  first  and  only  man  of  his  day  in  North  Africa  who 

■••'■  Utpote  qui  aquis  hmnersus  erat,  benedicit,  shiisira  urceiim  aqua  pla- 
num  super  ejusdem  caput  effund'd.  Urceus  iste  ex  a;re  eiiam  nunc  ibidem, 
in  sacrario,  etc. 

tErgo  quia  caput  mcrgi  non  potey^at,  superfusio  aquce  adhibebatur, 
iminersio  ad  reliqnem  corpus,  ut  mdla  pars  hominis  expers  essci  sacri 
lavacri.    Ibid. 

X  Robinson  cites  also  wliere  in  trine-immersion  in  other  cases  "  aquam 
capitibus  baptizandorum  superfundunt"  etc. 


288  BAPTISM. 

names  it,  and  the  first  time  he  names  it  trine-immersion 
was  the  rite.  Superstitious  practices  are  united  with  it  of 
a  most  revolting  kind,  showing  it  was  all  born  of  super- 
stition. 

6.  The  first  time  we  find  baptism  practiced  as  a  single 
immersion,  as  now  practiced,  is  in  the  History  of  Sozomen, 
in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  He  treats  it  as  an 
innovation  never  known  before.*  No  immersionist  has 
given  or  can  give  a  case  where  baptism  was  practiced  in 
all  the  records  and  literature  of  the  church  till  the  fourth 
century  after  Christ. 

7.  Hence  no  Latin  father,  in  all  their  voluminous 
works,  is  found  that  during  the  first  two  and  a  half  centu- 
ries of  the  church,  renders  baptldzo  by  immergo,  nor  a 
Greek  that  renders  it  by  hcdaduo,  immerse.  But  after  the 
third  century  they  soon  introduce  these  terms,  and  they 
become  common. 

8.  Where  Tertullian  uses  mergo,  mergito,  it  is  not  in 
defining  baptldzo.  Indeed,  when  he  uses  mergo  he  imme- 
diately uses  tingo  (baptize)  as  expressive  of  a  different 
idea.  Hence,  to  constitute  '^  one  baptism ''  they  used 
"  three  immersions  " — katadusels. 

9.  In  all  these  periods  baptism  was  by  aifusion  also. 
Hence — 

10.  Not  a  single  father,  Latin,  Greek,  Syriac,  or  Arabic, 
for  the  first  three  centuries  ever  refers  to  Romans  vi,  4; 
Colossians  ii,  12,  '^Buried  by  baptism  into  death,"  as 
water  baptism,  a  fact  utterly  incompatible  with  the  suppo- 
sition that  mode  was  regarded  as  essential  or  that  it  was 
water  baptism. 

*  Sozomen 's  Eccles.  Hist.,  chap,  xxvi,  pp.  282-284.  He  urges  that 
Eunomius  "  devised  another  heresy  " — a  single  immersion,  instead  of 
"trine-immersion,"  It  was  "an  innovation,"  he  a  heretic  in  doing  so. 
See  the  full  quotation  in  Louisville  Debate,  pp.  593-4. 


BAl»Tll>Z()    IN    PATlilSTlC    GUKEK.  289 

11.  In  all  their  disputes  over  the  efficacy  of  immersion 
as  a  sanctifying  means,  in  the  third  and  later  centuries,  as 
if  a  mere  sprinkle  of  water  failed  to  convey  as  much 
grace,  not  once  do  they  question  the  mode  when  per- 
formed by  sprinkling,  never  that  of  pouring,  nor  appealed 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  if  among  them  it  necessa- 
rily implied  immersion.  They  do  agree  that  ^^  more  ben- 
efit is  imparted^*  where  the  water,  regardless  of  mode, 
whether  by  "  mersion "  or  by  "  superfusion,"  comes  in 
contact  with  "  all  parts  of  the  body." 

12.  All  the  most  ancient  baptisteries  (none  earlier  than 
the  third  century) ;  all  ancient  and  earlier  allusions  to  it ; 
all  picture  representations  of  it  in  earlier  times,  sustain 
affusion.  But  after  all,  of  what  value  are  the  testimonies 
of  the  fathers  on  this  subject,  after  the  third  century  at 
least  or  even  the  second,  when  the  Bible  and  philology  so 
overwhelmingly  demonstrate  the  truths  we  hold  ? 

19 


290  ];aptis:m. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Tabal,  Hebrew  for  Baptidzo. 

But  we  have  a  source  of  light  still  on  this  subject  that 
is  as  instructive  in  philology  as  it  is  overwhelming,  in 
proof  that  our  views  are  infallibly  correct  on  this  subject. 
All  scholars  and  critics  are  agreed  that — 

1.  p^if]  Tabal  (pronounced  tavaJ,  tabhal),  the  Hebrew 
word  for  baptidzo,  occurs  sixteen  times  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, once  being  in  composition. 

2.  As  Schleusner  says,  it  corresponds  to  baptidzo, 
though  as  Suicer  and  Beza  show,  it  answers  more  to 
rachats,  as  to  use. 

3.  It  is  often  translated  baj)to  in  the  Greek  Scriptures. 

4.  It  is  generally  rendered  dip  in  James\s  version, 
though  never  the  equivalent  of  complete  immersion. 

5.  It  is  translated  baptidzo  (baptize)  by  the  Septuagint 
(2  Kings  V,  14),  the  version  largely  used  by  the  apostles. 

6.  It  is  translated  baptize  constantly  by  all  ancient 
writers  who  treated  of  it,  by  the  lexicons,  and  is  the 
word  niost  constantly  used  for  the  ancient  proselyte  bap- 
tism by  Jews.* 

7.  Like  the  classic  baptidzo  it  was  not  a  word  of  relig- 
ious import  ordinarily  till  a  later  day.  Once  in  the  Bible 
it  is  religiously  used — meaning  '^  purified^^ — ^^  "Whom  Je- 
hovah hath  purified — lustravit^'  (Gesenius). 

*Sinceri  Thesaurus,  vol.  1,  art.  Baptidzo  and  'ma;  Wahl's  Clavis, 
ihid.;  Beza  Annot.  Matt,  iii ;  Trommius's  Concor.  LXX,  art.  Bap.; 
Schleusner,  ibid;  Louisville  Debate,  pp.  479,  416-17,  etc. 


TABHAL,    HEBREW    FOll    IJAI'TIDZO.  291 

8.  It  is  frequently  the  translation  of  raehats  (VQ^)^  the 
word  immersionists  insist  always  implied  ini mergence  in 
the  ancient  Jewish  Targums.* 

9.  It  is  often  translated  by  tseva  in  the  Targnnis,  and 
the  immersionists  claim  this  as  the  word  of  words  for  im- 
merse, whicli  M.  Stuart  freely  gives  up  to  them. 

Let  us  examine  the  lexicons,  then  the  occurrences  of 
this  word,  then  its  root-meaning,  in  the  light  of  science 
and  of  history.  The  smaller  manuals,  lexicons  of  highest 
repute,  are  those  of  J.  Simonis,  edited  by  Wetstein,  1757, 
later  by  Winer,  Stokius,  Leigh,  J.  Buxtorf,  1639,  and 
Gesenius  of  the  present  century.  They  all  define  tabal 
exactly  alike,  same  that  Buxtorf  has  demerset,  sink  down 
or  under  as  a  meaning.  These  three  then  give  it  tabal, 
^'to  moisten,  dip,  immerse."  f  Gesenius  once  also  ren- 
ders it  "  purify."  :|: 

Hottinger,  Hectaglotton,  1661,  renders  it  to  moisten, 
wet,  stain,  dip,  to  wash.§  We  will  expose  the  blunders 
and  self-contradictions  of  Gesenius,  whom  Rabbi  Wise 
clings  to,  at  the  end  of  this  chapter.  The  careless  render- 
ing of  Gesenius  by  Robinson,  and  the  confounding  by  im- 
mersionists of  the  partial  dip,  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  moisten 
a  bunch  of  hyssop,  etc.  with  a  total  immersion,  has  caused 
confusion  here.^  The  word  immerse  in  Hebrew — tabha 
(r2*J) — all    the    lexicons    define    by   immerse    (immergo), 

*  It  is  so  rendered  2  Kings  v,  10. 

tTinxit,  iniinxit,  imynersit.     Buxtorf:  Also  demersit. 

%  Liistravit,  Thesaurus  sub  voce  Tebaliahu. 

lEtymologicum  Orientate  Lex.  Harmonicum  Hectaglotton,  Heb.,  Chal., 
Syr.,  Arab.,  Samaritanse,  ^thiopicse,  Talmudico— Robinicse,  a  Jab.  Henr. 
Hottengero,  MDCLXI.  The  ''abluere,"  wash,  refers  simply  to  rab- 
binic and  Chaldaic  use. 

^Sce  Louisville  Debate,  pp.  436-7,  473-4,  as  examples,  as  if  dip,  dip 
in,  and  immerse  were  exactly  the  same.  If  so,  whi/  the  three  words, 
and  why  the  tirtxit,  infinxif.  vnmersit  ? 


292  BAPTISM. 

promptly,  never  by  trngo,  which  shows  a  marked  distinc- 
tion. Dip  is  a  derivative  meaning  of  tingo  as  it  is  of 
bapto,  tabal,  etc.  But  that  we  may  see  who  is  correct  as 
to  the  meaning  intended  by  the  lexicographers,  let  us  ap- 
peal to  the  great  folio  works  they  have  left  us,  wherein 
they  elaborately  explain  the  whole  matter,  and  we  will  be 
left  in  no  doubt. 


THE    GREAT    STANDAED    FOLIO    LEXICONS. 

1.  We  introduce  the  leader  of  this  august  tribunal, 
the  illustrious  Schindler,  whom  Dr.  Leigh,  indorsing  other 
great  names,  calls  "the  greatest  scholar  in  Christendom.'^ 
His  lexicon,  Pentaglotton,  1612,  thus  deposes  on  ^*  tabal, 
Chaldee,  tebal:  to  moisten,  dip,  sink,  immerse  for  the 
purpose  of  wetting  or  cleansing,  sink  down  or  under.  In 
such  wise  (thus),  to  wash,  as  the  thing  is  not  made  clean, 
but  merely  touches  the  liquid  either  in  whole  or  in  part, 
to  baptize.'''*' 

2.  Buxtorf,  usually  styled  "the  Prince  of  Hebrew 
scholars,"  so  often  quoted  by  inimersionists  as  their  cham- 
pion, thus  defines  it  in  his  great  folio,  the  result  of  his 
life's  labor.  It  is  only  his  manual  quoted  in  the  Louis- 
ville Debate,  pages  450  and  675.       Tabal,  j  to  moisten, 

•••■  Lexicons  Pentaglotton,  Hebraicum,  Chaldaicum,  Syriacum,  Tal. — 
Rab.  et  Arabicum,  professor  ancient  languages  in  the  principal  institu- 
tions of  Germany,  MDCXII.  '^5.^,  Chal.  '^rp  tebal,  tinxit,  intinxit,  mer- 
sit,  immersit,  tingendi  aut  dbluendi  gratia,  deniersit ;  ita  lavit,  ui  res  non 
tnundetur,  sed  ta.ntum  attingat  himiorem  vel  totam  vel  exparte,  haptizavit. 

tJ.  Biixtorfii  Lexicon  Chal.  et  Rah.  opus  xxx  annorum,  Basilece 
MDCXXXIX.  Tehal,  tingcre,  intingere,  dem.  im,  intingi,  im,  Rab- 
bi?iis  usurpatiir  pro  Lavare  se,  abluere  aliquid  in  aqua.  Ahlutio  aidem  est 
T>cl  Vasornni,  vel  hominum.  Honi.inurn  abhitio  fiehnt  i^nmersione  corporis 
tatius  in  aquas.  Et  htnc  .  .  .  ita  ut  res  abluenda  ab  aliquid  ei  aducereus 
non  totn  ahhiaiui\  et  ab  aqua  cQnlingatur.     Sedar  Tatiareth,  Bctza,  folio, 


TABHAL,    HEBKEW    FOR    BAPTIDZO.  293 

to  dip,  sink  down,  immerse,  be  dipped,  immersed.  It  is 
used  by  the  rabbins  for  to  wash  oneself,  to  cleanse  any 
thing  in  water.  But  the  washing  is  of  the  vessels  or  men. 
The  washing  of  men — persons — may  be  accomplished  by 
immersing  the  wliole  body  in  Avater.  The  washing  of  ves- 
sels  also  hath  its  own  peculiar  regulations.  And  here  the 
rabbins  are  very  careful,  and  notice  the  minutest  matters^ 
that  pertain  to  the  purification  which  they  accomplisli  in 
the  Avashing,  so  that  the  object  to  be  cleansed  from  any 
thing  adhering  to  it  is  not  Avashed  all  over,  but  sprin- 
kled with  the  Avater."  He  then  quotes  Ledar  Taharoth, 
that  they  "cleanse  (tabal)  all  things  before  the  Sabbath.'^ 

3.  Stokius  is  not  a  folio,  but  stands  so  high  with  Mr. 
A.   Campbell  Ave  notice   him.     Defining  it  quite   as  the 
manuals,  and  as  equivalent  to  hapto  and  baptidzo,  he  adds, 
"So  that   it  touches   (or   is   touched  Avith)  the    moisture 
(liquid)  in  AAdiole  or  barely  in  part,''  etc.^'' 

4.  Ed.  Leigh,  Critica  Sacra.  This  great  scholar  de- 
fines it  as  the  rest  above,  adding,  "The  object  is  not  puri- 
fied, but  merely  touched  Avith  the  liquid  either  wholly  or 
partly,  to  baptize."  f 

5.  Castell.  We  come  noAV  to  quote  the  largest  and 
most  remarkable  Oriental  lexicon  that  has  ever  been  com- 
piled, in  Avhich  all  the  Avords  in  the  Hebrew,  Chaldee, 
Syriac,  Samaritan,  ^thiopic,  Arabic,  and  Persic  manu- 
scripts, as  Avell  as  printed  books  in  Walton's  famous  Poly- 
glott,  are  contained,  by  Edmund  Castell,  S.T.D.,  Lon- 
don, 1669.  This  immense  folio  in  tAvo  volumes,  contain- 
ing forty-six  hundred  and  twenty-tAvo  immense  pages  was 
172.  "  Contingaiur"  is  compounded  of  con — with,  and  tango — to  touch. 
It  is  rendered  besprinkle  by  the  lexicons  also. 

*  Ut  attmgat  humorem  ex  toto,  aut  saltern  exparte,  Clavis  Heh.,  etc. 
'\Res  non  mundetur,  seel  tantuni  attiyigat  hwnore  vel  tota,  vel  parte, 
baptizavit.     This  is  not  a  folio,  but  most  eminent  critic. 


294  BAPTISM. 

the  result  of  the  labors  of  nineteen  of  the  ablest  scholars 
and  critics  in  the  world  at  the  time,  employed  on  it  seven- 
teen years,  aggregating  over  three  hundred  years'  labor, 
allowing  for  the  death  of  some  before  finishing  the  work. 
Native  Jews,  rabbis,  Arabs,  and  such  men  as  Lightfoot, 
AYansleb,  Murry,  Beveridge,  assisted  in  the  work.  Being 
thus  assisted  he  excels  all  others  in  accuracy  and  research, 
up  to  that  period,  and  he  had  before  him  the  results  of 
Schindler,  Buxtorf,  Walton,  and  Golius,  etc.  Hence  it  is 
equivalent  to  nineteen  lexicons,  made  and  condensed  by 
nineteen  authors  so  renowned. - 

prj]  tabhal,  "  to  moisten,  dip,  sink  down,  immerse, 
(English,  dip  or  dabble),  baptize.  It  differs  from  rachats 
(wash)  because  it  is  a  washing  to  purify  an  object.  Dip- 
ping, but  it  merely  touches  the  object  to  [or  with]  the 
liquid,  either  in  part  or  in  whole.'^  Kabbi  David  Kimchi, 
Gen.  xxxvii,  31,  etc. 

"Chaldee,  tebal,  same  as  the  Hebrew,  where  the  rabbins 
use  it  for  to  wash  oneself,  cleanse  any  thing  in  water.  But 
the  washing  is  either  of  vessels  or  of  men ;  later  it  was  by 
the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water,  but  not  always. 
Pocock,  P.M.  No.  390,  etc.;  Rabbi  Levi,  Sept.,  etc.; 
Rabbi  Solomon."  * 

In  the  face  of  all  this  immersionists  will  say,  as  Elder 
Wilkes  does,t  that  ^'  it  never  means  to  wet  or  moisten,  not 
once;  it  never  means  to  wash,  but  it  alicays  means  to  i«i- 
merse.''^     Italics  his. 

*^2s2,  ilnxif,  hit ,  dem.  im.  (Angl.  to  dippe  or  dabble)  haptizavit:  dif- 
fert  a  ^'J^  quod  lotio  sit  ad  rem  mundandurti :  Intinciio,  autem  retn  hu- 
niidam  coniingnt  tantum,  vel  exparte,  vel  tot(tm.  R.  Dav.  (Gen.  xxxvii, 
31,  etc.). 

Chal.,  ^^ip^  i_  q^  j^gj^  {}}_  Jiah.  Lavit  se,  ahllut  aliquid  in  aqua.  Ablu- 
tio  autem  est,  vel  vasorum.,  vel  hominum,;  posterior  sit  immersione  corpo- 
ris totius  in  aqua;  at  non  semper  (Pocock,  P.  M.  No.  390,  etc. ;  R.  Levi, 
8cpt ,  Hauct.  p.  Tes.  R.  Sol).  t  Louisville  Debate,  p.  453. 


TABHAL,    HEBREW    FOR    BAPTIDZO.  295 

6.  Fiirst.  We  now  quote  the  latest  and  most  scientific 
Hebraist  that  has  lived  for  ages,  Rabbi  Fiirst. 

The  greatest  Hebrew  lexicon  ev^er  yet  produced,  re- 
stricted to  the  Hebrew  and  a  few  Chaldee  verses  in  the  He- 
brew Bible,  as  well  as  the  only  one  yet  that  has  any  claim 
to  a  correct  analysis  of  the  root-meaning  of  words,  is  by 
the  great  Jewish  rabbi,  Julius  Fiirst,  1840,  and  his  per- 
fected lexicon  of  a  much  later  date — last  edition  1867/'' 

*  On  the  fluctuations  of  Hebrew  lexicography,  the  following  facts 
presented  by  the  learned  Havernick,  and  fully  vindicated  b}^  Delitzsch, 
Hupfeld,  and  Ewald,  later  by  Fiirst,  no  scholar  can  gainsay:  "A  Gen- 
eral Historico-critical  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  by  H.  A.  Ch. 
Havernick,  late  teacher  of  theology  in  the  University  of  Konigsburg, 
MDCCCLII  (1852)."  This  is  held  by  scholars  to  be  the  best  introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  ever  produced.  Page  221,  he  shows  the  dif- 
ferent systems  espoused  to  develop  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  language. 
*'The  formal  conception  of  the  stems  "  was  an  important  point— all  im- 
portant. "  Both  (schools)  set  out  from  the  principle  that  the  radices 
(roots)  of  the  Hebrew  are  biliterce  (two  radical  letters  forming  the  ba.^e 
of  the  word),  and  that  the  grand  meaning  of  the  biliterge  must  be 
evolved  from  the  meaning  of  the  letters  composing  it."  He  shows  that 
Danz  founded  the  best  later  school.  After  Ch.  B.  Michaelis  and  Storr 
"there  .  .  .  prevailed  .  .  .  a  certain  em^iricis;/i  which  is  to  be  viewed  in 
relation  to  the  earlier  as  a  retrogression  in  the  method  of  investigation, 
and  by  which  penetration  into  the  Hebrew  was  little  furthered.  To 
such  an  empirical  mode  of  treatment,  in  opposition  even  to  what  had 
been  before  attempted,  did  Vater  yield  himself.  However  distinguished 
for  careful  collecting  of  materials  and  tasteful  arrangements  are  the 
lexical  and  grammatical  works  of  Gesenius,  they  are,  nevertheless,  con- 
fined to  this  EMPIRICAL  STANDPOINT,"  223-4,  "  '  By  Ewald's  Kritische 
Grammatik'  this  was  for  the  first  time  assaulted,  and  a  scientifie  investi- 
gation of  the  language,  proceeding  upon  the  proper  laws  of  speech,  and 
placed  upon  a  footing  of  due  harmony  with  the  historical  appearance 
and  development  of  the  language,  was  entered  upon.  His  efforts  and 
those  of  Hupfeld  have  thus  once  more  begun  to  create  positively  an 
epoch  in  the  study  of  Hebrew,  an  advance  which  is  also  beginning,  at 
least,  to  make  itself  apparent  in  the  lexical  department."  "  Buxtorf 
still  remains  the  eompletest  compilation  of  lexical  and  grammatical 
matter  here,  aaid  there  is  still  wanting  a  genuinely  scientific  and  in- 
dependent, even  iji  the  grammars  of  the  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Winer  (He 


296  BAPTISM. 

The  first  is  a  great  folio,  with  complete  concordance.  The 
one  in  German  (lexicon),  the  other  in  Latin : 

Fiirst:  Tahal,  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to  sprinkle;  to  im- 
merse. The  root  is  bat.  Compare  the  words  derived  from 
the  same  root  with  kindred  meanings — to  flow,  drop  down, 
pour,  pour  water  on,  stream  forth,  sprinkle.  Septuagint, 
baptein,  baptidzein,  molunein,^'^ 

In  his  later  lexicon,  where  he  brings  out  all  the  results 
of  his  labors,  1867,  this  distinguished  Jewish  professor,  of 
Leipzig,  thus  defines  tabal,  to  baptize;  ^^To  moisten,  to 
sprinkle,  rigare,  tingere ;  therefore  to  dip,  to  immerse. 
.  .  .  The  fundamental  signification  of  the  stem  is  "to 
moisten,  to  besprinkle." 

Elder  Wilkes,  and  some  writers  following  him,  in  his 
last  speech,  to  which  I  had  no  reply,  says,  page  675  f  (Lou. 
Debate),  '^  Is  it  not  singular  that  he  (Fiirst)  should  say  it 
means  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle,  and  therefore  to  dip  or  im- 
merse?" He  urges,  then,  that  there  must  be  some  error 
here.  It  would  be  strange  indeed;  but  Elder  Wilkes 
ought  to  have  known  that  it  was  not  true,  nor  should  he 
have  waited  till  his  last  speech  to  say  so,  lest  it  might  be 

brew  older  works),  and  others."  I  have  had  Hupfeld's  work  some  four- 
teen ycais— the  ablest  yet  out.  Of  him  he  says,  "In  more  recent 
times  they  (these  principles)  have  found, /or  the  first  time,  a  worthy 
critic  in  Hupfeld "  (Note,  page  222).  Now,  as  Ewald  and  Hupfeld 
brought  oat  the  true  principles  of  Hebrew  study,  and  demolished  the 
empirical  system  of  Gesenius,  Fiirst  takes  up  their  results  and  brings 
them  out  in  all  their  force,  and  makes  a  new  era  again  in  Hebrew  study. 
The  far-fetched  and  utterly  silly  analogies  of  Gesenius  are  crushed,  and 
the  true  laws  for  discovering  the  root  established. 

*  * -T'  ''''d'^^'c,  tingere,  perfundere  (German  edition,  begiessen),  immer- 
(jcre.  Radix  est  bal  -2...  compara  modo  verba  eadem  de  radice  orta 
ahal,  bal,  zabel,  shabal,  etc. 

t  Page  680,  Mr.  "Wilkes  says  again,  "  I  know  it  does  not  make  any 
sense  to  say  that  the  word  iaval  means  'to  sprinkle  or  pour,'  and  there- 
fore to  immerse,  'to  dip.'  That  is  not  good  sense."  Who  soys  it?  .  .  . 
Xi)t  Fnr.<t.  as  />is  own  quotation  shows. 


TABHAL,   HEBIIEW    FOK    BAPTIDZO.  297 

corrected.  Fiirst  copies  his  Latin  definition,  and  the 
word  that  W.  says  always  means  dip,  immerse,  and  from 
which  dip  is  developed — tingere,  thus:  rigare,  linger e; 
therefore  to  dip,  etc.;  i.  e.  as  it  means  tingere,  so  it  comes 
to  mean  to  dip.  See  above  where  it  is  just  as  in  his 
lexicon. 

Let  us  sum  up  now. 

1.  All  give  moisten,  wet,  as  the  most  common  meaning. 

2.  All  give  immerse  as  a  derivative,  and  not  primary 
meaning.     Not  one  gives  it  as  a  primary  meaning. 

3.  All  of  the  great  masters  say  that  if  the  object 
merely  touches  or  is  touched  by  the  liquid  or  water  it 
baptizes  it. 

4.  That  immersion  was  a  mode  by  which  Jews  bap- 
tized sometimes,  not  always;  and  it  was  a  later  practice 
than  by  affusion  or  barely  being  touched  {ab  aqua)  by  the 
water.     Buxtorf  and  Castell. 

5.  That  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  besprin- 
kle, sustained  by  all  words  of  the  same  root. 

6.  Gesenius,  the  great  immersionist  lexicographer,  as- 
sumes, first,  that  its  root  is  the  same  Avith  deuo  in  Greek, 
to  bedew,  sprinkle,  shed  forth;  second,  that  the  root, 
meaning  immerse  never  has  such  meaning  in  all  Bible 
literature.*  He  never  renders  it  immerse,  but  dip  (m- 
tingo),  as  well  as  ^^to  purify." 

*  Gesenius,  1833-4,  Thesaurus,  1835-6,  traces  ^5?J,  tabha,  immerse, 
and  ^5.-^,  iabal,  tahhnl,  to  the  same  root — 2^  [tab).  Eabbi  Wise,  of  Ohio, 
follows  him  in  a  published  letter,  and  misquotes  and  utterly  tortures 
Fiirst's  hmguage,  yet  admits  it  dips  rvholly  or  partly.  Gesenius  says  ^s^ 
is  the  same  as  "  Hebrew  and  Arabic  ^'=^,"  and  adds,  "  The  primary 
syllable  is  D^  [tah)  .  .  .  depth,  and  immersion.  Compare  Goth.  Diiip, 
Engl,  deep,  Ger.  tief ;  also,  Goth,  daujen,  Ger.  tavfen,  Engl,  dip;  Gr. 
6h'TG)  {dujyto),  and  softened  Sevo)  (deuo)."     Such  jargon  is  absolutely  a 


298  BAPTISM. 

7.  Castell's  nineteen  lexicographers,  Stokius,  Leigh, 
Schindler,  Buxtorf,  and  Furst,  equivalent  to  twenty-four, 
twenty-three  of  whom  are  the  greatest  ever  known.  Add 
Rabbi  Kirachi,  who  defines  it  the  same  way,  and  in  tenth 
century,  whom  Gesenius  exalts  above  all,  we  have  twenty- 
five  with  us,  and  Gesenius  thrown  in. 

Dr.  Barnes  is  often  quoted  by  immersionists.  On 
tabhal  he  says  in  his  Notes  on  Matthew  iii,  6  (vol.  1), 
where  he   takes  it  up  from  baptldzo,  ''In  none  of  these 

burlesque.  But  if  correct,  it  destroys  the  whole  immersion  fabric.  Aei^w, 
which  he  holds  is  same  root  with  tab,  we  have  seen  means  to  bedew, 
sprinkle,  shed  upon,"  etc.  So  we  are  sustained,  and  might  stop,  But 
we  will  not  let  him  and  his  admirers  oflf  so  easily,  Gesenius  says  under 
^1-^  tcuncB,  to  he  or  become  unclean,  hnpurc,  to  he  defiled,  2>olluted.  He 
renders  tabhal,  tinxit,  intinxit,  immersit,  and  "  lustravit"  under  its  com- 
position form.  Syriac,  tama,  to  pollute  .  .  .  The  primary  idea  is  that 
of  immersing.  See  in  ]'^^  taman.  (a)  Chiefly  spoken  of  Levitical  un- 
cleanness,  both  of  persons  and  animals  (i.  e.  animals  not  to  be  eaten. 
See  Lev.  xi,  1-31),  and  also  of  things,  as  buildings,  vessels,  etc.  Twice 
does  Gesenius  assert  that  "  the  primary  idea  is  that  of  immersing,'"  etc., 
s})eaking  of  D*J  as  the  root.  Yet  he  can  not,  and  he  does  not,  adduce  a 
single  word  that  has  tab  as  the  root  that  ever  means  to  immerse,  dip,  or 
piunge.  On  the  contrary,  out  of  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  references 
which  he  gives  himself,  he  never  renders  it  immerse  or  dip;  nor  dared 
he  do  so.  He  renders  it  "defile,  pollute,  profane,  e.  g.  the  name  of  God 
(  Ez.  xliii,  7,  8  );  the  sanctuary  ( Lev.  xv,  31  ;  Jer.  vii,  30) ;  a  land  by 
wickedness  and  idolatry  (Num.  xxxv,  34;  Jer.  ii,  7,"  etc.).  The  texts 
show  that  it  was  often  done  by  touching,  as  a  dead  body  (Lev.  xi,  24), 
"toucheth  the'carcass,"  etc.  (v.  26),  "  toucheth,"  etc.  Here  then  is  the 
root  of  his  favorite  word  that  means,  primarily,  "to  immerse."  Yet 
7iever  means  to  immerse  in  a  single  place  in  all  Hebrew  literature.  On 
the  contrary,  he  shows  that  it  is  done  in  most  cases  by  a  mere  touch,  in 
many  by  affusion,  in  some  by  sprinkling,  as  in  case  of  blood,  or  water 
that  is  unclean,  etc.  He  is  wild  in  his  idea  of  nazah,  getting  it  from 
Arabic  naza,  where  it  is  clearly  the  same  with  the  Arabic  natzach,  to 
sprinkle;  ^thiopic,  naza.ch.  Lastly,  Gesenius  getting  all  his  support 
from  Indo-European  languages,  where  in  his  greatest  Essay  on  Phi- 
lology ho  utterly  repudiates  that  source  as  a  reliable  aid  (see  it  also  in 
the  Bib.  Repos  ,1833)  is  utt(>rly  inconsistent.  We  will  further  test  the 
root  tab  di recti v,  and  see  the  result. 


IIEBIIEW    Foil    BAPTIDZO.  299 

fifteen  cases  [he  misses  one]  can  it  be  sb.own  that  the 
meaning  of  the  word  is  to  immerse  entirely.  But  in 
nearly  all  the  cases  the  notion  of  applying  the  water  to 
k  part  only  of  the  person  or  object,  though  it  was  by 
dipping,  is  necessarily  to  be  supposed." 

Lightfoot,  next  to  Pocock  and  Fiirst,  of  all  the  scholars 
in  centuries  past  was  the  best  versed  in  rabbinic  litera- 
ture. In  the  famous  and  often  misstated  discussions  of 
the  Assembly,  1643,  it  is  stated  in  his  life  that  one  man 
asserted  that  this  word,  pronounced  in  later  times  tebeUah 
(baptism),  ^Mmports  a  dipping  overhead."  Lightfoot 
answered  him  '^  and  proved  the  contrary,  first,  from  a 
passage  of  Aben  Ezra  on  Genesis  xxxviii  [xxxvii,  31]; 
second,  from  Rabbi  Solomon  Jarchi,  who,  in  his  commen- 
tary on  Exodus  xxiv,  saith  that  Israel  entered  into  cove- 
nant with  sprinkling  of  blood  and  Taybelah  [i.  e.  tebalj 
baptism],  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
expoundeth  by  sprinkling  (Hebrew  ix.  .  .  In  conclusion, 
he  proposed  to  that  Assembly  to  show  him  in  all  the  Old 
Testament  any  one  instance  where  the  word  used  de  sacris 
et  in  actu  transeunte  implied  any  more  than  sprinkling." 

All  that  Wetstein,  Alting,  Meyer,  etc.  have  on  this 
question  is  taken  from  the  above  masters.  Who,  then, 
best  knew  of  the  matter? 

Gesenius  made  a  futile  effort  to  run  tab,  the  word  he 
erroneously  assumes  to  be  the  root  of  tabaly  through 
the  Aryan  tongues  into  dauhj  dob,  daupian,  etc.,  doopar, 
when  in  the  Semitic  families,  so  much  nearer  home,  dub, 
dob,  daba  would  have  come  far  nearer  giving  the  truth 
and  science  of  his  dip.  2'n  (dub)  in  Chaldee,  to  flow, 
flow  down,  to  rain  (bedew);  Syriac,  dob,  make  wet,  flow; 
Samaritan,  to  flow;   Arabic,  moisten,  make  wet.*     Kin- 

■■'Fiuxii,  defflux'd,  proJIt<xit,  roravit,  Uquefecit,  tlie  latter  repeated  over 
and  again. 


300  BAPTISM. 

dred  to  it,  same  word  strengthened,  is  duph,  dap  ;  Arabic, 
dapa,  or  dijxi,  to  make  wet,''^  macerate. 

As  Gesenius  has  been  so  earnestly  pressed  into  service 
by  Elder  Wilkes,  etc.  we  will  cite  what  he  says  in  his 
famous  and  very  learned  essay  on  Sources  of  Hebrew 
Philology  and  Lexicography,  to  show  again  his  defective 
and  contradictory  statements:  ^'3.  But  the  most  impor- 
tant by  far  of  all  the  languages  kindred  to  the  Hebrew, 
and  in  every  respect  the  most  fertile  source  of  Hebrew 
etymology  and  lexicography,  is  the  Arabic,  one  of  the 
richest  and  most  cultivated,  and  also  in  its  literary  history 
one  of  the  most  important  languages  in  the  Avorld.'' 
*^The  Arabic  the  best  and  surest  help.^f  He  gives  ^Svords 
which  stand  in  connection  with  the  Indian  tongues,"  i.  e. 
Aryan  branches,  as  simply  a  few  words  in  music  and 
natural  history.  Yet  on  tabal  he  violates  all  this,  and 
seeks  all  liis  help  in  Aryan  languages  and  ignores  the 
Arabic  that  was  full  of  help  on  that  very  root.  In  the 
late  Webster's  Dictionary  all  this  folly  is  copied,  and  they 
give  for  dip,  ^'  Ger.  dopen,  Sw.  dopa^  D.  doopen.^^  Web- 
ster never  put  it  there  of  course;  they  state  that  fact  in 
the  introduction.     Ed.  1878.  J 

*Humectavit,  maceravit. 

tSee  also  more  in  his  "Arabische  Sprache  "  and  **Arabische  Liter- 
atur "  in  Ersch  and  Gruben's  Encyc. ;  Eichorn,  "Wachler,  Bib.  Kepos., 
1833. 

J  Why  did  they  not  then  cite  the  Arabic  dipa,  or  dapa,  dup,  etc.? 


PRIMARY    MEANING.  r>01 


CHAPTER  XXV, 

P  R  I  -M  A  R  Y    M  E  A  N  I  N  G  . 

Let  us  now  examine  as  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
term  baptize  as  it  occurs  in  Semitic  languages,  the  apos- 
tles being  Hebrews. 

In  religious  use  words  longest  retain  their  primary 
meaning.  In  Genesis  the  word  baptize  first  occurs,  and 
we  have  seen  it  is  in  the  sense  of  sprinkle.  We  now  pro- 
pose to  apply  to  ^2*J  tubal  (pronounced  taval)  the  rules 
and  laws  by  which  the  true  meanings,  and  primary  mean- 
ings, of  all  words  are  now  found  by  philological  scientists. 
Before  we  do  this  let  us  hear  A.  Campbell  on  the  rules 
applied :  "  Derivative  words  legally  inherit  the  specific 
though  not  necessarily  the  figurative  meaning  of  their 
natural  progenitors,  and  never  can  so  far  alienate  from 
themselves  that  peculiar  significance  as  to  indicate  any 
action  specifically  different  from  that  indicated  from  the 
parent  stock.  [We  have  seen  how  utterly  void  is  this  in 
our  examples  of  words  meaning  to  sprinkle,  pour,  dip, 
immerse,  etc.]  Indeed  (continues  he),  all  inflexions  of 
words,  with  their  sometimes  numerous  and  various  fam- 
ilies of  descendants,  are  but  modifications  of  one  and  the 
same  generic  or  specific  idea.''  He  then  runs  one  word, 
"dip,"  through  such  inflexions  and  says,  emphasizing 
every  word,  "Wherever  the  radical  syllable  (bap)  is  found 
the  radical  idea  is  in  it"  (Chris.  Baptism,  pp.  119,  120). 
That  U,  as  Mr.  Campbell  applies  this  to  io^^fo  and  bap- 


;)()2  ]iAPTis>r. 

tidzo,  if  we  select  all  the  words  compounded  or  derived 
from  the  root  bcqyto — its  radical  idea,  the  root  being  bap 
with  the  force  of  ^'dip'^ — we  will  find  dip  in  every  such 
word. 

We  have  bajjto,  baptos,  baptce,  embapto,  baptidzo,  embap- 
ildzo,  hata-baptidzo,  anabaptidzo,  baptismos,  baptlsma,  bap-, 
tisis,  baptista?s,  with  all  possible  inflexions — ebaphon,  eba^ 
phce,  bammati,  bebamnienon  ;  the  letter  p  exchanged  for  an 
m,  to  be  resumed  again.  In  all  these  is  the  root  ba]); 
hence  always  the  idea  of  dip.  So  reasons  the  immersion- 
ist.  We  are  not  now  objecting  to  all  this  as  a  rule,  but 
deny  the  dip  as  the  primary  idea.  We  now  test  baptize 
in  Hebrew  where  it  occurs  more  than  one  thousand  years 
before  we  come  up  with  it  in  the  Greek  any  where.  As 
we  gave  above  thirteen  or  fourteen  variations  of  baj:),  the 
root,  let  us  select  about  an  equal  number  of  variations  of 
the  root  of  the  Hebrew  word  baptize  (^5.^  tabal),  Bal 
is  the  root  of  the  word.  Now  what  is  the  prevailing 
'^  idea^'  of  this  root  of  the  word  in  Hebrew?  Fortunately 
in  Hebrew  we  have  great  light  here  in  kindred  tongues 
in  which  the  same  root  occurs  in  many  words,  with  tlie 
same  meaning,  while  unfortunately  in  the  kindred  tongues 
to  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  other  Indo-European  tongues, 
no  assistance  has  been  found,  no  kindred  root.*  In  the 
Arabic,  Gesenius  and  all  philologists  agree  is  our  greatest 
help  to  critically  learn  the  Hebrew  and  understand  the 
i> cuius  of  it. 

In  Arabic  we  select  the  root  itself — 

1.  '^3  {bal,  bala).  Freytag  thus  defines  bal:  "To  mois- 
ten,  and   especially   to  make   wet  or  soft  by   sprinkling 

■•••  It  is  to  be  hoped  research  in  the  Sanskrit  may  find  the  root  of  this 
word.  We  feel  perfectly  certain  if  it  is  found  it  will  be  as  in  the 
Hebrew  and  other  languao;es. 


PI i  nr A 1  i  Y  M  E A  X I N <j .  ;)():>, 

or   light   affusion   of  liquid.     VIII   to   bedew,    be   made 
wet."  * 

Castell:  ''  Bal,  to  moisten,  and  especially  to  make  wet 
or  soft  by  sprinkling/^  i.  e.  water.  Lorshbach's  Syriac 
Thesaurus — bal-confudit,  to  pour  together. 

2.  Arabic,  6a/-a-/a,  same  root.  Schindler:  To  sprinkle, 
make  wet.f  Gesenius :  To  moisten,  to  make  wet  by  affu- 
sion of  water  [liquid],  to  sprinkle.  % 

3.  Bahala  (root  hal,  Gesenius).  Buxtorf,  Gesenius, 
Castell,  all/^  sprinkle."  § 

4.  "^22  {hal-cd).  This  word  in  the  Arabic  Bible  is  the 
translation  of  [id-rco  {bapto),  and  throws  a  flood  of  liglit 
on  all  this  question  from  a  philological  standpoint.  It 
bears  exactly  the  primary  relation  to  baptize  in  Hebrew 
that  hapto  does  in  Greek.  Let  us  then  give  it  at  length 
as  it  is  so  directly  and  essentially  related  to  baptism. 
Leigh  in  his  Critica  Sacra  gives  "to  pour,  sprinkle."^ 
Castell:  ''To  be  sprinkled,  to  sprinkle."  Schindler:  ''To 
])our,  besprinkle,  sprinkle."  Gesenius:  "To  sprinkle,  to 
moisten,  make  wet  by  affusion  of  water,  sprinkle."  But 
it  does  not  stop  with  that  meaning.  It  goes  on  and  de- 
velops the  following:  "To  sprinkle,  make  wet,  moisten, 
dip,  to  water,  make  wet  (Luke  vii,  38,  44),"  (equal  to 
brecho)  (Ps.  vi,  7,  (6) ;  Luke  xvi,  24,  rendered  from  (/3drr^ 
i/wdTZTto)  bapto,  embapto ;  John  xiii,  26,  dip.  It  is  repeat- 
edly used  for  "  dip,"  "dip  in." 

5.  ^P^  naphal,  na-bal,  root  bal.  Targum,  "pour  out" 
{effundo,  Castell). 

'^Madeficit,  et  spec,  rigavit  maceravU  ve  asperso  aid  leviier  affuso  liU" 
more.     VIII.  Maduit^  rigatus  fuit. 

tPerfudit,  humectavit. 

X Rigavit,  affuso  humor e  madejicit,  consjoersit. 

gEach  gives  "  conspersit. ' 

^Conspersit;  Castell,  Perfudit,  conspersit;  Schindler,  Fudit,  perfu* 
dlt,  eonspersif ;  Oosenius.  same  as?  No.  8  quoted.     So  Preytag, 


304  ]JAPTI.SM. 

6.  "^r?  Sha-bal,  "  to  flow,  to  pour/'  Furst,  Arabic, ''  to 
rain,  flow  down." 

7.  TiJ  ^6a/,  "rain/'     (Castell,  Arabic),  "moist." 

8.  '"'2  BAL,  "rain." 

9.  TiD  bid  {hat),  "to  flow,  stream  forth  copiously." 
Fiirst,  etc. 

10.  Mahal  Arabic,  ma-BAL-o,  "  to  flow  copiously,  to 
moisten." 

11.  1?^  ya-BAEL,  bal,  the  root,  "to  flow,  to  stream." 
Fiirst. 

12.  '^2"^  iva-hal,  Arab,  to  pour  rain,  to  rain  copiously 
and  vehemently ;  rain.'^ 

13.  ^il^  2/a-BAL,  "to  flow,  to  stream,  to  pour,  drop 
down,  moisten."     Fiirst. 

Thus  we  see  that  affusion  is  in  every  word  that  has  the 
root  of  the  word  baptize.  More  evidence  is  useless.  Let 
us  now  test  tab  (2*j),  Gesenius's  idea  of  the  root,  and  see 
if  it  is  immerse.  Wc  have  seen  that  his  assumptions  sus- 
tain us,  but  we  do  not  want  to  be  sustained  by  error.  His 
position,  too,  crushes  the  immersion  theory,  as  it  makes 
"  bedew,"  etc.  come  from  immerse. 

Let  us  now  take  the  words  that  have  tab  as  their  root, 
and  see  the  meaning  of  such,  Gesenius  being  one  of  the 
prominent  judges. 

1.  Ratab  (^i^"^),  Gesenius  defines  thus:  "To  be  wet, 
moisten  with  rain  (Tob.  xxiv,  8),  also  with  sap  .  .  .  espec- 
[ially]  of  the  moisture  of  juices  of  plants,"  etc. 

2.  Natab  (^55"^),  ^thiopic,  same  as  the  Hebrew  shalab,-\ 
to  distill  or  shed  drops,  as  dew-Avater,  etc. 

3.  Nataph,  Tab  is  the  root — tab-taph:  "To  drop,  fall 
in  drops,  to  distill.  ...  In  a  similar  manner  the  Arabs 

*Im,brem  effudit,  copiose  et  vekemenier  pluit  .  .  .  imber  (Castell). 
t  Castell  and  Piirst,  disiillavii  guUa.    Hepiaglotton,  2283. 


PRIMARY    MEAXIXG,  305 

transfer  the  idea  of  watering,  irrigating"  [or  wet],  etc. 
(Gesenius.) 

4.  Zah,  zub,  is  kindred  to  tab,  with  kindred  meanings, 
to  flow,  of  water,  blood,  etc. 

5.  f]1iJ  Tsuph.  In  this  word  the  ts  stand  for  t,  and 
tab  is  the  root.  It  means  "to  pour,  pour  out,  irrigate, 
flow.'' 

6.  Shataph,  tab  the  root,  "to  gush  or  pour  out''  (Ge- 
senius). This  word  comes  to  mean  to  immerse  in  later 
literature.  We  pass  the  blunders  of  Mr.  Wilkes  on  the 
accusative,  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  determines 
whether  we  regard  it  as  accusative  or  dative  in  all  these 
texts.* 

*■  Not  one  case  where  tahhal  occurs  has  the  noun  the  signs  of  the 
accusative.     They  are  dative  or  accusative  as  the  sense  may  require. 

20 


306  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

T  A  B  H  A  L  . 

Seeing  in  the  last  chapter  that  all  Hebrew  lexicogra- 
phers sustain  the  position  that  to  besprinkle  or  touch  even 
the  person  with  water,  baptizes,  let  us  examine  this  word 
in  the  Bible  and  rabbinic  Hebrew.  It  occurs  sixteen 
times  in  the  Bible.  In  our  English  version,  which,  as 
the  Baptists  truly  say,  is  only  a  revision  of  a  former  ver- 
sion— Tyndale,  1526-1534 — made  by  iramersionists,  and 
when  Hebrew  and  Greek  were  but  poorly  understood  as 
to  philological  principles,  it  is  rendered  dip  in  all  the 
places  where  it  occurs  as  a  verb.  Of  it  Mr.  Wilkes  (Lou- 
isville Debate  p.  453),  says,  "It  always  means  to  immerse J^ 
Italics  his.  Again,  "The  word  taval  (tabhal)  is  used  six- 
teen times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,*  and  every  time  it  means 
IMMERSION."  Now,  what  do  Mr.  W.  and  his  colaborers  in 
immersion  mean  by  immerse?  Evidently  to  sink  clear 
and  completely  under  the  element,  so  that  every  part  is 
enveloped,  covered.  That  is  what  they  mean.  Now,  a 
careful  examination  of  each,  of  all,  its  occurrences  will  show 
and  demonstrate  that  it  never  means  immerse  nor  dip  in 
their  sense  of  that  word.  A  few  passages  excepted,  say 
about  three,  as  Job  viii,  31,  the  object  to  be  obtained  by 
tabhal  was  not  dip  in  any  sense,  while  immersion  is  wholly 

■•••It  occurs  sixteen  times  tis  noun  and  verb,  thus:  Leviticus  x,  6, 17 
ix,  9;  xiv,  6,  16,  54;  Numbers  xix,  18;  Euth  ii,  14;  Exodus  xii,  22 
Deuteronomy  xxxiii,  24;  Job  ix,  31;  1  Samuel  xiv,  27;  2  Kings  v,  14 
viii,  15;  Joshua  iii,  15;  Genesis  xxxvii,  31. 


TAIiHAL.  307 

out  of  the  question  in  every  case.  The  only  object  of  the 
word,  in  about  thirteen  of  the  places  where  it  occurs,  Avas 
to  wet  the  object  slightly,  moisten,  saturate  so  as  to  sprin- 
kle objects.  In  some  of  these  cases  a  partial  dip  would  be 
most  natural,  and  was  the  process,  but  in  no  case  was  there 
un  immersion.     Let  us  examine  a  few. 

1.  In  Exodus  xii,  22,  the  blood  is  used  to  saturate,  or 
moisten  the  bunch  of  hyssop.  No  mode  is  involved.  The 
bunch  of  hyssop  most  naturally  would  be  ^'  touched  to  '^ 
the  blood,  moistened  Avith  it,  very  partially  dipped. 

2.  In  Leviticus  iv,  6,  17,  the  priest  was  to  moisten  his 
linger  with  the  blood.  A  "mere  touch"  would  do  this — 
any  contact.  The  finger  in  the  case  could  not  be  im- 
mersed. In  Exodus  xii,  22;  Leviticus  iv,  17,  the  Greek 
is  with,  a2:)o,  by  means  of  the  blood  ;  Hebrew  min — not  in. 
This  utterly  forbids  dip,  as  immersionists  say  apo  "  helps 
out"  of  the  water  (A,  C).  Or  does  apo  mean  'Mnto"  and 
"out  of"  both,  just  as  it  suits?    It  means  neither  of  them. 

In  Leviticus  xiv,  6,  it  is  impossible  that  "the  living 
bird,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop" 
should  all  be  immersed  "in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was 
killed."  It  was  done  thus:  "A  stick  of  cedar  wood  was 
bound  to  a  bunch  of  hyssop  by  a  scarlet  ribbon,  and  the 
living  bird  was  to  be  attached  to  it;  that  when  they  dipped 
the  branches  in  the  water  the  tail  of  the  bird  might  be 
moistened,  but  not  the  head  nor  the  wings,  that  it  might 
not  be  impeded  in  its  flight  when  let  loose."*  The  mois- 
tening of  a  part  of  the  bird  was  baptizing  the  bird.  In 
verse  51  he  was  to  baptize  the  cedar  wood,  hyssop,  scarlet, 
and  living  bird  (b'dom)  with  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird, 
and  "with  the  running  water"  (Heb.).  Only  a  part  of 
the  bird  was  made  wet,  yet  the  bird  was  baptized. 
*  Jamieson,  Fausset,  and  Brown's  Commentary  on  Leviticus  xiv,  6. 


308  BAPTISM. 


FIRST   OCCURRENCE  ON   RECORD   OF   BAPTISM. 

In  Genesis  xxxvii,  31,  is  the  first  occurrence  in  the 
world  of  a  baptism.  As  it  is  the  oldest  document  in  the 
world  by  a  thousand  years  (save  other  Bible  records),  and 
older  than  any  of  the  Bible  occurrences  by  from  four  hun- 
dred to  five  hundred  years,  it  is  very  important  as  showing 
the  earlier  and  primary  meaning  of  the  word : 

^^And  they  took  Joseph^s  coat,  and  killed  a  kid  of  the 
goats,  and  dipped  the  coat  in  the  blood ;  and  they  sent  the 
coat  of  many  colors,  and  they  brought  it  to  their  father '^ 
.  .  .  (verse  33).  ^^And  he  knew  the  coat;  it  is  my  son's 
coat;  an  evil  beast  hath  devoured  him."*  The  Targum 
of  Onkelos  reads  as  the  Hebrew,  tabal,  baptized  Avith 
blood. 

1.  The  object  in  baptizing  this  toga  or  outward  cloak 
was  to  impress  the  father  that  a  wild  beast  had  slain 
Joseph. 

2.  In  that  day  men  were  quick  to  detect,  reading  less 
than  we,  and  thrown  constantly  upon  their  instincts  and 
self-protection.  Nor  Avas  Jacob  noted  for  stupidity  by 
any  means.  What  beast  or  animal  would  submerge  the 
outer  garment  in  one's  blood  in  slaying  him  ?  It  would 
be  rent  off  first  of  all  and  receive  but  little  of  the  blood 
comparatively.  These  men  showed  great  cunning,  and 
would  not  make  the  blunder  of  immersing  the  coat. 

3.  The  father,  just  as  they  intended,  knew  the  coat  ^^of 
many  colors."  If  submerged  in  blood  how  many  colors 
would  it  have  had  ? 

4.  The  ancient  versions  take  the  same  view,  and  are 
above  all  authorities  on  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

*C12  .n:nrri".nX  ••■'2t3*]_  ^ayyitbelu  (tabhal)  eth-ha1<uio-neth  baddam 
— and  baptized— sprinkled — the  coat  with  the  blood. 


TABHAL.  309 

(1)  The  Greek  used  by  the  apostles  translate  it  sprin- 
kle,'*^ stain,  i.  e.  by  sprinkling.  H.  Stephanus  says,  "The 
primary  meaning  (of  molunebi)  is  to  sprinkle.'^  f 

(2)  The  Targum  of  Jacob  Tawus  renders  it  "bedashed,'^ 
i.  e.  sprinkled  with  blood. 

(3)  The  Latin  Vulgate  (tingo),  stained  with  blood. 

But  the  old  Pesbito-Syriac,  the  oldest  and  purest  ver- 
sion and  most  literal  in  the  world,  translates  it  "sprinkle.^' 
It  reads  t  ("''^.?.^5)  phalpheluh  [or  palpeluh,  soft],  sprin- 
kled with  blood.  It  is  remarkable  that  here  this  old,  in- 
valuable version  renders  baptize  by  the  other  word  avc 
gave,  hakd,  for  its  root  is  bed,  as  Gesenius  and  Fiirst  show, 
and  is  thus  rendered  by  Buxtorf  in  his  folio  lexicon 
of  rabbinic  Hebrew  and  Chaldee;  for  the  Chaldee  and 
Syriac  are  the  same  word,  same  meaning. 

?2?D  i^phalphael)y  conspergere ;  et  conspersl  pulvere  glo- 
riain  meam  (phcdphael)  (Job  xvi,  15) — "I  have  sprinkled 
my  head  {horns,  glory,  is  the  Hebrew)  with  dust.'^ 

Esther  iv,  1 :  "And  sprinkled  {conspjersus,  plialphael) 
his  head  with  ashes.''  Gesenius's  Thesaurus:  "Bal-cd, 
same  as  Chaldee  71C,  ^5?^^  phalphal,  conspersit ;  Syriac, 
phalphal  conspersit;  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  to  sprinkle." 

•=■  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  530)  has  only  lliis  answer  to  all  these  facts, 
after  corresponding  with  Drs.  Yarden,  Conant,  Toy,  etc.,  for  help  to  aid 
in  writing  up  a  reply  after  the  debate:  "In  one  instance  [Greek  trans- 
lators] where  (Gen.  xxxvii,  31)  they  translated  it  [tabal]  figuratively 
« to  dye.' "  That  would  be  so  if  moliinein  did  not  mean  sprinkle.  But 
the  Syriac  has  no  figurative  rendering,  they  put  it  sprinkle,  and  leave 
all  sensible  people  to  apply  the  effect  of  sprinkling  blood  on  a  garment. 
Passow,  Rost,  Palm,  and  Liddell  &>  Scott  all  render  molunein  "  sprinkle," 
hesprengen. 

t  Primitiva  noHo  est  conspergere.  H.  Stephanii  Thesaurus  Grecaj 
Lin.,  V,  p.  6223.  Liddell  &  Scott:  "  MoAww,  to  stain,  sully,  defile,  sprin- 
kle,"    Sprinkle  is  the  mode  by  which  nolvvu,  stained  primarily. 

X  ("•  "-t;^])  wephalphduh  lckieti?io,  sprinkled  the  coat— twiic. 


310  BAPTISM. 

CastelFs  Heptaglott:  Phalphal,  Syriac,  ^^  consperdt—r 
sprinkle/' 

We  will  add  one  passage  more  of  Hebrew  now,  where 
ahhal  occurs  among  the  old  Hebrew  writers  about  or  near 
Christ's  day. 

"There  Avas  not  any  like  to  Benaiah,  the  son  of  Jeho- 
iada,  under  the  second  Temple.  He  one  day  struck  his 
foot  against  a  dead  tortoise,  and  went  down  to  Siloam, 
where,  breaking  all  the  little  particles  of  hail,  he  baptized, 
vetahhal,  himself.  This  was  on  the  shortest  day  in  win- 
ter, the  tenth  of  the  month  Tebeth."  Lightfoot's  Horse 
Habraicse  et  Talraudicse,  vol.  3,  p.  292. 

It  is  useless  to  argue  such  a  question  as  immersion  or 
dipping  here.  Does  it  always  mean  immerse?  Thus  the 
root-meaning  of  the  lexicons,  the  Bible  use,  and  ancient 
Hebrew  usage,  and  the  translations,  all  agree  that  it  is  to 
sprinkle,  to  moisten. 


A^XIE^*T    VEESIO^v'S   ON    BAPTIDZO.  311 


CHAPTER  XXVIL 

Ancient  Versions  on  Baptidzo — The  Syriac. 

All  scholars,  all  linguistic  critics,  and  all  lexicographers 
are  agreed  that  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Scriptures  are  all-important  to  lexicographers  and 
expounders  of  the  Word  of  God.  All  appeal  to  them  as 
the  very  highest  authority  in  determining  the  force  and 
current  meanings  of  the  words  of  Scripture.  Hence  some 
have  carried  this  to  even  a  dangerous  extent.  Of  this 
class  we  may  name  Dr.  Gale,  A.  Campbell,  Mr.  Pendle- 
ton, of  Bethany — all  immersionists.  The  latter  assumes 
that  Christ,  "in  speaking  to  'a  ruler  of  the  Jews/  did 
not  use  the  Greek  language."  He  tells  us  "he  spoke  in 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic,'^  i.  e.  Syriac,  all  of  which  is  true,  but 
he  uses  it  very  doubtfully.'-'  Gale  assumes  that  the  Pesh- 
ito-Syriac  translation  was  made  from  the  autographs  of  the 
apostles.  That  may  be  true,  yet  the  assumptions  based  on 
it  may  not  be  true.  A.  Campbell  tells  us  of  "the  origi- 
nal word  used  by  the  Savior  in  his  native  Syro-Chaldaic 
language.^'  t 

1.  The  Syriac,  or  Syro-Chaldaic,  as  some  call  it,  was 
the  vernacular,  the  spoken  language  of  the  Messiah  and 
his  people  in  his  day  on  earth.  In  it  he  preached  habit- 
ually, as  did  his  apostles  generally. 

2.  The  translation  known  as  the  Peshito  was  executer], 

*Millen.  Harb.  iS'ov.,  1807,  pp.  582-3. 

t  Debate  witb  Rice,  and  in  Chris.  Baptism.  lo5. 


iM'2  BAPTISM. 

beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  as  a 
rule  at  least,  gives  us  the  very  words  used  by  Christ  in  his 
sermons  and  discourses.  Hence  all  of  the  most  learned 
critics  in  the  Syriac  maintain  that  this  version  was  made 
in  the  first  century.  Of  these  may  be  named  the  great 
Walton,  Kennicott,  S.  Davidson,  Lowth,  Carpzov,  Leus- 
den.  Stiles,  Palfrey;  while  Michaelis  and  Jahn  put  it  at 
'•the  close  of  the  first"  or  ^'the  earlier  part  of  the  second 
century."-'- 

3.  The  Syriac  being  the  tongue  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, and  of  the  great  body  of  all  the  first  Christians,  it 
is  absurd  to  suppose  they  did  not  have  a  translation  of 
the  Bible.  The  kings  of  Syria,  in  Edessa,  Avere  converted 
to  Christianity  in  the  middle  of  the  apostolic  age.  It  is 
absurd  indeed  to  suppose  they  had  no  translation. 

4.  All  ancient  traditions  of  all  the  Syrian  churches, 
*'Nestorian,  Monophysite,  Melchite,  and  Maronite,  in 
all  of  w^iich  this  version  has  been  in  public  use  time  out 
of  mind,  and  has  ever  been  revered  as  coeval  with  the 
origin  of  those  churches." 

5.  They  all  held  it  to  have  been  made  therefore  in  the 

"■•■•Walton,  Prolegomena  to  his  Polyglot,  pp.  92-95,  says,  "For  the 
New  Testament  being  written  in  Greek,  whose  vernacular  language  was 
Syriac,  every  where  savors  of  Syriacisms.  Hence  Ludovicus  (author 
of  a  Syriac  lexicon,  etc.)  affirms  that  the  true  import  of  the  phraseology 
of  the  New  Testament  can  scarcely  be  learned  except  from  the  Syriac." 
«'  They  conceived  in  Syriac  what  they  wrote  in  Greek."  Pres.  E.  Stiles, 
D.D.,  of  Yale  College,  says,  "  The  greater  part  of  the  New  Testament 
was  originally  written  'in  Syriac,'  and  not  merely  translated,  in  the 
apostolic  age."  All  the  fathers  held  that  Matthew,  if  not  Mark  and 
Hebrews,  were  written  first  in  Syriac.  Bolton  held  that  "  nearly  all  the 
epistles  must  have  been  first  composed  by  the  apostles  in  Aramaean 
(Syriac),  their  native  tongue."  The  learned  Bertholdt  defends  this  view. 
"The  Syriac  translator  has  recorded  the  actions  and  speeches  of  Christ 
in  the  very  language  in  which  he  spoke"  (J.  D.  Michaelis).  So  held  in 
almost  the  same  words  Martini,  W.  Francius,  Palfrev,  etc. 


ANCIENT    VER.SI()X>S    OX    BAPTIDZO.  31:3 

apostolic  age.  Hence  its  great  purity  and  symplicity. 
Hence  they  say,  "But  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament 
[books]  and  of  the  New  Testament  were  translated  with 
great  pains  and  accuracy  by  Thaddeus  and  the  othe»* 
apostles.^'     No  refutation  of  this  can  be  adduced. 

6.  Of  this  version  Dr.  Judd,  indorsed  and  copied  by 
Dr.  J.  R.  Graves  in  the  Appendix  he  published  to  M. 
Stuart  on  Baptism,  says,  ^'  The  old  Syriac,  or  Peshito,  is 
acknowledged  to  be  the  most  ancient  as  well  as  one  of 
the  most  accurate  versions  of  the  New  Testament  extant. 
It  was  made  at  least  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  in  the  very  country  where  the  apostles  lived 
and  wrote,  and  where  both  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek  were 
constantly  used  and  perfectly  understood.  Of  course  it 
was  executed  by  those  who  understood  and  spoke  both 
languages  precisely  as  the  sacred  writers  themselves  un- 
derstood and  spoke  them.  .  .  All  the  Christian  sects  in 
Svria  and  the  East  make  use  of  this  version  exclusively'^ 
(p.  246). 

7.  Such  a  version  thus  executed  was  indorsed  thus  by 
the  whole  body  of  the  apostolic  ages  and  the  scholarship 
of  the  whole  Syrian  church.  Its  renderings  of  haptidzo 
must  be  of  the  greatest  moment,  therefore. 

Dr.  Gale  (Baptist)  says,  ^'  The  Syriac  must  be  thought 
almost  as  valuable  and  authentic  as  the  original  itself, 
being  made  from  primitive  copies  in  or  very  near  the 
times  of  the  apostles/'  By  primitive  he  tells  us  what  he 
means — ^' The  autograph''  of  the  apostles.  Reflections 
on  Wall,  vol.  2,  118. 

Origen,  born  only  eighty -three  to  eighty-five  years 
after  John's  death,  cites  the  Peshito  as  a  familiar  version 
already  long  in  use.  It  was  cited  a.d.  220  as  an  estab- 
lished standard  of  authority.     Ephraem  Syrus  quotes  one 


314  BAPTISM. 

Avho  wrote  thus  who  treats  it  as  established  in  his  day. 
So  valuable  is  it  that  Goteh,  A.  Campbell,  Conaiit,  Judd, 
all  head  their  list  of  versions  with  the  venerable  Peshito. 
The  truth  is,  that  if  it  were  not  executed  till  the  sec- 
ond century,  it  uses  the  words  for  baptism  used  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles  any  way.  Of  that  no  one  would  express 
a  doubt. 

AMAD    IS    BAPTIDZO. 

The  Peshito  translates  baptidzo  by  amad.  It  is  all- 
important  now  to  know  the  exact  meaning  of  amad. 

Dr.  Judd  (Baptist)  says,  ^^AU  the  authorities  agree  in 
assigning  to  this  word  the  primary  and  leading  significa- 
tion of  immersion.'''^-  Dr.  Judd  copies  ft'oni  the  real 
Castell,  and  not  from  Michaelis's  edition,  abridged,  which 
leaves  off  the  important  word  involved  here. 

AVe  now  quote  the  lexicons  as  they  are. 

Castell:  This  great  work,  embodying  three  hundred 
years  of  labor,  by  native  Arabians,  Jews,  native  Syrians, 
being  based  on  two  lexicons  on  the  Syriac  part,  made  by 
Syrians  centuries  before,  and  the  equivalent  of  nineteen 
of  the  greatest  scholars  all  Europe  produced  in  that  re- 
nowned age,  the  seventeenth  century,  defines  amad  thus : 

^^Amad,-\  primarily,  to  wash  [literally  to  be  cleansed  or 

•••■Appendix  to  Graves's  M.  Stuart,  p.  246.  Since  the  above  was 
written,  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  p.  530)  says,  Amad  in  Syriac,  as  all  stand- 
ard lexicographers  testify,  primarily  signifies  to  immerse."  A.  Camp- 
bell (Chris.  Bap.,  pp.  135-6)  says  essentially  the  same.  Dr.  G.  never 
uttered  such  a  sentiment  during  the  debate.  That,  like  nearly  all  else  aftei 
the  first  few  speeches,  was  rewritten,  and  so  was  never  seen  by  me  till 
the  book  was  out.  Wc  loaned  our  Castell  to  Dr.  Graves,  and  he  knew 
what  it  said. 

tAmad,  Prim,  ablutus  est,  baptizatus  est  (Matt,  iii,  16;  Luke  xix 
11,  38,  etc;  Matt,  iii,  7,  etc.;  Luke  vii,  30),  Aph  [for  Ajihel,  derivative] 
immersit  (Num.  xxxi,  24);  baptizavit  (Acts  xix,  4,  16,  etc  ) ;  abl.ntio,  bap- 
ti:?atio,  hnpii::niN<i,  Inrnrrinn. 


ANCIENT    VERSIONS    ON    BAPTIDZO.  315 

washed],  to  baptize."  Matt,  iii,  16,  etc. ;  Luke  xix,  11, 
38,  etc. ;  Matt,  iii,  7,  etc. 

^'Aphel  [i.  e.  derivatively],  to  immerse  (Num.  xxxi,  24). 
Noun  from  mamudhitho,  cleansing,  baptism,  washing." 
Arabic — same  word,  same  root — "to  baptize,  to  make 
wet  with  rain."  *  Under  amah,  ''  The  Arabians  also  lisp 
in  pronouncing  amah,  amath,  amad,  amat — to  be  immersed, 
to  bedew,  sprinkle  with  water  [or  rain]  (the  earth,  herbs, 
etc.),  sprinkle  Avith  water  [rain  or  dew].  A  horse  wet 
with  water,  also  sprinkled.  Morning  dew,  also  wetting 
the  earth,  field,  bedewed,  sprinkled  with  dew  [or  rain] 
wetting,  etc."  f 

J.  Michaelis^s  amad,  to  wash,  baptize.  Aphel  [i.  e.  deriv- 
atively] to  immerse.  4: 


PESHITO   SYPwIAC. 

Oberleitner:  ^'Amad,  to  cleanse  [or  wash],  to  baptize. 
Derivatively,  aphel,  to  immerse,  to  baptize."  § 

"^Arabic,  mnada ;  baptizavit;  A.  madore  jiluvice  affecta  fuit 

t  Arabic,  et  balbidlvit  in  pronunciatione  (i.  e.  aniaih,  amad,  amat),  hn- 
mersus  fuii,  maduit,  rore  perfusa  fuit  {terra,  terba,  etc.),  rore  perfusa. 
Equus  aqua  rigcetus,  et  perfusus.  Res  inatutimis,  et  terram.  irrigans.  .  . 
Rore  perfusus,  mademus,  etc.  (Heptoglotton,  Ed.  Castell,  280). 

t  As  IMichaelis  is  misquoted  in  his  note  to  the  abridgment  from  Cas- 
tell we  give  it.  Mihi  verisimilius,  diversum  playie  ab  literarumque 
aliqua  pernuitatione  ortum  ex  gamotha,  sicbmergere.  That  is,  he  simply 
urges  (1)  That  amad  does  not  mean  in  Sj^riac  to  stand,  as  some  thought; 
(2)  That  he  thinks  that  there  has  been  an  exchange  of  letters,  that  it 
should  be  gamatha  instead  of  am,ad — a  perfect  absurdity.  Yet  Dr.  Graves 
boldly  tells  us  in  substance  that  M.  says  it  is  immerse,  etc.  On  deriva- 
tive Aphel,  Dr.  Green's  Heb.  Gram.,  p.  101,  sec.  77,  a  may  be  con- 
sulted, where  it  answers  in  Hebrew  to  ^'■derivative  verbs,"  in  Greek  and 
Latin.     (See  Hoffman's  Syr.  Gram.,  etc.  in  detail.) 

^^Ayvnd,  /tlyluhiR,  hrfj^fiznfus  rsi.     Aphel  anircl  inimcrsit,  baptizavit. 


31G  BAPTISM. 

4.  Catafago:  ''Amad,  the  being  wet  with  rain."*  This 
is  the  only  meaning  he  gives  it. 

5.  Schaaf :  "Amady  to  cleanse  [or  wash]  oneself,  to  be 
washed,  to  be  dipped,  to  be  immersed  in  water,  to  be  bap- 
tized." He  then  supposes  it  to  be  of  a  word  spelled  like  it 
in  Hebrew;  then  he  gives  the  Arabic  through  its  conjuga- 
tions; then  resumes  the  Syriac,  giving  it  baptize  all  the 
time.     Then — 

^^Apliel  [derivatively],  to  immerse,  to  baptize.  To  im- 
merse (Numbers  xxxi,  23).  To  baptize  (Acts  i,  5;  xi,  16; 
xix,  4). 

Mamudhitho  (noun),  baptism,  place  of  baptism,  washing, 
cleansing.f 

6.  Hottinger,  1661,  a  lexicon  of  Hebrew,  Chaldaic, 
Arabic,  Syriac,  etc.,  etc.:  "Amad,  to  baptize"  (haptizare). 

7.  Gutbier:  ^'Amad,  to  baptize,  to  be  baptized."  He 
then  gives  "to  support"  as  the  meaning  all  now  reject, 
because  it  was  based  on  the  old  false  assumption  of  kin- 
dredship  with  the  Hebrew  word  "to  stand,"  followed  by 
Gesenius. 

8.  Gesenius:  "Among  the  Syriac  Christians  amad  is 
to  be  baptized,  because  the  person  baptized  stood  in  the 
water.'-  J 

9.  Schindler,  1612:  '^Amad,  Arabic  amada,  to  be  bap- 
tized, to  be  immersed  in  w^ater,  to  be  wet,  to  be  washed; 

•••Catafago,  secretary  to  Soliman  Pasha,  1839-40,  etc.,  corresponding 
member  of  the  Asiatic  societies  of  Paris  and  Leipsig,  of  tlie  Syro-Egyp- 
tian  Society  of  London,  translator  of  various  Oriental  works,  living  in 
Aleppo,  in  Syria,  in  Beirut,  etc,  1858.     It  is  an  Arabic  lexicon. 

t "  Amad,  ahluit  se,  ahlutus,  intinctus,  immersus  in  aquam,  bapii- 
zatus  est.  Aphel  amed,  im-mersU,  baptizavit.  Immersit  (Num.  xxxi,  23); 
bapt'izavit  (Acts  i,  5,  etc.).  Noun — baptisinus,-ma,-terium;  lotio,  ablutioJ' 

XAjmd  Syros  Christianos  [amad)  est  baptizatus  est,  quia  baptizandus 
stabat  in  aqua. 


AXCIEXT    VERSIOXS    OX    BAPTIBZO.  317 

for  they  who  were  baptized  stand  iip/=^  ...  to  wash  one- 
self/' etc. 

Schindler  so  mixes  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  it  is  impos- 
sible to  tell  which  meaning  is  meant,  particularly  for  the 
Syriac  and  Arabic.  The  fact  he  and  Gesenius  state  is  true, 
but  not  because  of  kindredship  in  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac 
word.  But  it  was  an  early  custom  for  the  candidates  to 
stand  'Mmmersed  in  the  water''  ^'to  be  baptized/'  noticed 
elsewhere. 

Beza  is  often  quoted  as  saying  amad  is  always  immerse. 
He  says  of  '^  baptizein,  to  dye,  to  moisten  (madefacere) ,  to 
immerse,"  and  argues  this  in  the  old  style;  then  adds, 
*^  Neither  is  there  any  other  meaning  of  the  word  amad 
which  the  Syrians  use  for  baptize."  f  Beza  then  finds 
*Svash,  cleanse,"  in  haptidzo  by  consequence,  then  pour  as 
the  mode. 

I  have  Lorsbach's  great  folio  work,  but  it  is  not  yet 
completed  as  far  as  to  amad  or  any  word  relating  to  bap- 
tism, being  in  numbers  issued  as  fast  as  they  can. 

Now,  then,  we  have — 

1.  All  these  Syriac  lexicographers,  equal  to  some  twen- 
ty-five, giving  wash  (cleanse)  as  the  primary  meaning  of 
amad. 

2.  Not  one  gives  immerse  as  the  primary  meaning. 

3.  Not  one  gives  immerse  as  a  current  meaning. 

4.  All  give  immerse  both  as  a  derived  meaning  and  as 
a  rare  one. 

5.  Not  one  gives  immerse  as  a  New  Testament  mean- 
ing, and  they  could  find  but  one  place  in  the  whole  Old 

*Syr.,  amad;  Arabic,  amad  haptizaius,  in  a.qiiam  ivimersus,  tincius, 
lotus  fuit :  Siobant  enim  qtii  hapiiznhantur,  .  .  .  sese  abluisaet. 

t  Tingere,  ciitn  Trapd  to  jSaTzrecv  dicaiu?',  et  cum  tingenda  merganiur, 
madefacere,  et  mergere.     Then — "  Nee  alia  est  sigmfcatw,''  etc. 


318  BAPTISM. 

Testament  where  amad  meant  immerse;  and  in  that  place 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  have  not  the  words  for  baptize. 

6.  Over  and  again  it  means  to  sprinkle,  to  wet  with 
dew,  wet  with  rain,  bedew — all  being  cases  of  sprinkling. 

7.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  finding  where  the  Greek  word 
louo  (Xooo)'),  to  wash,  pour,*  is  twice  translated  amad  in 
Susanna  xii,  6;  xiii,  16,  in  London  Polyglott  of  Walton. 

8.  In  John  v,  2,  4,  7 ;  ix,  7 :  ''Go  wash  at  [or  in]  the 
baptistery,^^  shows  that  amad  in  its  noun-form  expressed 
the  nipto,  wash,  which  was  simply  application  of  water,  not 
dipping. 

9.  The  Peshito,  or  the  translation  of  Kev^elation,  made 
only  a  little  later,  translates  bajyto  by  "  to  sprinkle.^^  f 

10.  It  translates  tabhal,  Greek,  baptidzo  (2  Kings  v,  14), 
by  sechoj  wash,  a  word  never  meaning  dip  or  immerse,  but 
primarily  "to  pour.^^  It  applies — secho  does — in  the  an- 
cient Targums  when  Joseph  ''washed  his  face."  In  the 
New  Testament  it  applies  (secho)  to  washing  a  dead  body, 
as  that  of  Dorcas,  wetting  a  couch  with  tears,  etc.  X 

11.  In  the  first  case  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  baptize  in 
all  literature  (Gen.  xxxvii,  31)  it  is  translated  sprinkle  by 
the  Peshito. §    Such  are  the  facts  in  this  great  version. 

12.  And  it  is  w^orthy  of  remark,  that  in  no  case  have 
the  Hebrew  words  for  immerse,  tabha,  kaphash,  shakha,  or 
the  Greek  words  budfhidzo,  kataduo,  pontidzo,  katapontidzo, 
immerse,  or  dupto,  dip,  or  bapto,  sometimes  to  dip — em~ 
bapto  dip,  ever  been  translated  in  Syriac  or  Arabic  by 
amad.     If  amad  was  immerse,  why  not  do  this? 

*  See  under  Wash.  No  lexicon  had  as  yet  made  that  discovery,  nor 
writer.     See  it  in  Carrollton  Debate,  p.  148. 

t  Revelation  xix,  13,  zelach,  "sprinkled  with  blood." 

JHottinger  defines  the  root-syllable,  sacha,  "to  pour  out,"  effudit. 
Castell,  effudit  aquam,  profudit.     In  Arabic,  "  vehement  rain." 

§See  all  the  quotations  and  facts  Chapter  XXIII  of  this  work. 


ANCIENT    VKllSIONS    ON    JIAPTIDZO.  iMi) 

13.  But  the  old  Syriac  has  another  word  for  baptize, 
in  ancient  Syriac  and  Arabic,  fseva;  tsavagh  in  Arabic,  or 
tsavaga.  The  ancient  sect  known  as  Sabeans  or  Tsabeans, 
derived  their  name  from  daily  baptizing.*  Baptist  Avrit- 
ers  think  tseva  was  the  word  used  by  Christ  in  the  com- 
mission.f  They  insist  tseva  always  means  immerse.  It  is 
the  same  in  Syriac,  Chaldee,  and  Arabic. 

(1)  The  great  Oriental  philologist  and  scholar  of  the 
present  age  in  Hebrew  and  kindred  languages,  was  Fiirst, 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  etc.  in  Leipsic,  Germany.  He  thus 
defines  it  as  late  as  1867-8:  ^^  Tseva,  to  moisten,  to  be- 
sprinkle, to  baptize;  Paal  (form),  to  water,  to  moisten. ^^ 
To  besprinkle,  to  moisten,  is  its  '^  fundamental  significa- 
tion.'' 

(2)  Gutbier  defines  it  "to  moisten,  to   wasli"  (lavit). 

14.  But  let  us  test  this  word  in  the  Bible.  In  Daniel 
is  the  only  place  where  it  occurs  in  Chaldee — the  only 
place  where  tseva  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  original 
(Daniel  iv,  20),  '^And  his  body  was  baptized  (tseva)  with 
the  dew  of  heaven."  Was  this  dipping?  O,  cries  the 
immersionist,  "  dews  are  very  heavy  in  Chaldea,  and  his 
body  v/as  as  wet  as  if  immersed!"  Indeed!  But  no 
matter  how  copious  the  dew",  it  does  not  read  "  as  wet  as 
if  dipped  or  immersed."  It  uses  no  metaphor  either.  It 
is  as  historic  and  unmetaphorical  as  when  it  says  "  the 
people  were  baptized."  It  is  as  literal  as  when  it  says 
"  Philip  baptized  him,"  the  eunuch.    "  His  body  was  bap- 

-  See  the  Note  in  ^ichaelis's  edition  of  Castell :  Scebii  nomen  Men- 
d(BOSum,  i.  e.  discipulorrim  Joannes,  qui  Ha  a  haptizajido  dlcti,  haptisia;, 
sen,  ut  Orceci  illos  vacant  i^/uepo — fiaTmaTac.  See  Neander's  Church  Hist., 
also,  and  Gieseler. 

t  Dr.  Graves  (Debate,  390),  as  published,  says,  "  In  this  [the  Nesto- 
rian  Eitual  of  Syria]  the  verb  amad  is  used  interchangeably  with  isevce, 
ivhich  has  no  other  meaning  hut  to  immerse.'"  He  used  not  a  sentence  i» 
all  that  published  speech  in  the  spoken  one. 


320  BAPTISM. 

tized  with  the  dew  from  heaven."     It  was  a  literal  man, 
literal  dew,  a  literal  baptism. 

15.  The  Vulgate  of  Jerome,  a.d.  380-383,  translates 
this  :  "And  his  body  was  sprinkled  with  the  dew  of  heav- 
en." *  In  the  Chaldee  it  is  repeated  four  times.  In  verse 
22,  the  Vulgate  again  reads,  "  His  body  shall  be  sprink- 
led (Chaldee,  baptized)  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  f  As 
Jerome  was  the  ablest  Syriac  scholar  and  Hebrew  in  all 
the  church  save  in  the  Syriac  branch  at  that  time,  and  his 
version  was  sustained  by  all  scholars,  it  certainly  is  con- 
clusive on  this  point. 

16.  Psalm  vi,  6  [in  the  Hebrew  7],  "  My  couch  have 
I  baptized  (tseva)  with  my  tears."     What  was  the  mode? 

SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 

17.  Ezekiel  xxii,  26:  "Thou  art  the  land  that  is  not 
(tzeva)  baptized  [English,  purified];  no,  upon  thee  the  rain 
has  not  fallen."  J  We  know  the  mode  of  this  baptizing. 
We  need  no  lexicons  to  aid  us. 

18.  Luke  vii,  38,  44.  Remember  that  most  likely  we 
have  here  word  for  word  the  very  w^ords  in  the  language 
Jesus  used ;  for  it  is  his  vernacular,  as  the  English  is 
yours.  It  occurs  twice  in  the  same  sense.  "Simon,  into 
thy  house  I  came ;  water  upon  my  feet  you  gave  me  not 
[so  runs  the  Syriac],  but  she  [the  woman]  with  her  tears 
my  feet  hath  baptized ! "  We  know  the  mode.  We  need 
no  lexicon.  I  Avould  not  give  one  such  witness  as  this — 
being  in  the  very  age  of  the  apostles,  in  the  very  language 
in  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  preached,  made  in  such  a 

-*Et  rove  coeli  conspergaiur. 
^Et  rore  cceli  infunderis. 
^  Metro,  necheth. 


ANCIENT    VERSIONS    ON    KAPTIDZO.  321 

language  by  such  men,  universally  received  as  true  to  the 
Greek  when  all  that  membership  knew  what  apostolic 
preaching  and  practice  were — I  would  not  give  one  such 
authority  for  a  thousand  lexicons  written  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  and  after  the  Dark 
Ages  with  their  superstitions  had  rolled  between. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  we  see  Castell  translate 
tseva  by  "to  moisten,  imbue  (Is.  Ixiii,  3);  to  immerse,  to 
baptize  (by  immersion),  to  pour  out,  baptism,'^  etc.'^  So 
Schindler:  "To  moisten,  to  dip  in  dye  or  liquid,  imbue  or 
infect,  color,  wash,  moisten,  to  water,  to  baptize."  f 

Such  are  some  of  the  facts  on  this  word.  Yet  they  tell 
us  it  always  means  to  immerse.  Even  M.  Stuart,  with 
strangest  inconsistency,  pointed  to  this  word  as  one  defi- 
nitely meaning  to  dip,  immerse !  when  it  was  the  very 
word  translated  bajito  in  Theodotian  which  in  those  very 
places  he  insisted  were  "  gentle  affusions.'^  It  shows  the 
carelessness  of  great  and  good  men  on  this  subject  at  least. 

In  the  Koran  this  word  (chap,  xxxiii,  20  or  21)  occurs 
"in  the  sense  of  syrup,  juice,  or  sap.'^  J; 

*Tinxit,  imbuit  (Is.  Ixiii,  3),  immersit,  bapiizavit  (per  immersionem), 
effudii,  baptismits. 

t  Schindler:  Tinxii  (of  tseva),  iniinxit,  colore  vel  humor e,  imbuit  seu 
infecit,  coloravit,  lavit,  madefecit,  rigavit,  baptizavit.  Gesenius:  Pual  and 
lih— the  only  form  it  has  in  the  Bible—"  to  wet,  moisten,  to  be  wet, 
moistened."  While  Gesenius  is  careful  to  tell  us  it  means  dip,  immerse, 
in  Hebrew,  when  the  word  never  occurs  a  single  time  in  all  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  to  dye,  in  the  Targums,  is  it  a  merit  after  this  blunder,  to 
fail  to  tell  us  it  is  one  of  the  leading  words  for  wash  in  the  Targums?  It 
not  only  translates  tabal,  but  frequently  translates  rachats,  "to  wash, ' 
"  pour."  It  is  the  word  in  the  Targum  in  Leviticus  viii,  6,  where  Aaron 
and  his  sons  are  washed  "  with  water  " — rachats  in  Hebrew,  while  in 
the  Syriac  and  Targum  of  Onkelos,  it  is  secho,  wash.  In  Numbers  xix, 
10,  19,  wash  is  tzeva  in  the  same,  as  well  as  verses  7  and  8. 

t  Its  root  is  defined  by  Fiirst,  to  pour,  trickle,  drop,  etc.  Gesenius: 
"  To  flow,  to  trickle ;  of  water,  to  pour." 


:i22  UAPTI^^M. 

111  Assemanni  Bihliotheca  OrienatUs  we  read  of  a  dis- 
tinguished bishop  named  Simeon  Bar  Tsaboe,  who  was 
martyred,  "and  he  indeed  (tzeva)  baptized  his  garments 
with  the  blood  of  his  own  body/^"^ 

AMAD   IN    SYRIAC   LITERATURE. 

Dr.  Gotch,  Elder  Wilkes  (Um.  Debate,  p.  579),  and 
Dr.  Varden  urge  that  the  following  text  is  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, viz:  '^And  that  yet,  at  a  small  river  that  same 
head  of  thine  should  be  subject  to  be  bowed  down  and 
baptized  in  if'  (Bible  Questions,  p.  130,  by  Gotch).  We 
observe — 

1.  This  is  in  the  fourth  century  after  Christ,  as  they  tell 
us.  We  freely  admit  immersion  was  often  practiced  in 
those  later  centuries,  though  aifusionwas  practiced  as  well. 

2.  He  was  baptized,  even  in  their  version  of  Ephraem, 
not  in,  but  "at  the  river" — ^^at  a  small  river"  (Le- 
nahero).     Hence  it  was  not  immersion. 

3.  If  his  whole  body  was  immersed,  why  spfeak  only  of 
his  head  as  bowed  "at  the  small  river,"  which  was  clearly 
to  receive  the  water  poured  upon  it?  No  one  bows  his 
head  simply  to  be  immersed  when  the  whole  body  is  put 
under. 

4.  The  figure  of  Ephraem  is,  that  as  the  waters  of  the 
sea  were  subjected  to  Christ's  feet,  so  now  his  head  is 
bowed  in  subjection  to  the  waters  of  Jordan,  poured  upon 
it  in  baptism.  The  rendering  "in  it"  is  equally  literal — 
"with  it,"  the  waters  of  the  "insignificant  stream." 

5.  All  ancient  pictures  of  Christ's  baptism  represent 
him  as  standing  "at  the  river,"  head  bowed,  to  receive 
the  water  poured  upon  it,  while  John  stands  with  a  little 

*  Tomus  i,  2. 


ANCIENT    VEESIONS    ON    EAPTIDZO.  323 

vessel  pouring  the  water  on  his  head.  No  such  ancient 
picture  represents  him  as  immersed. 

6.  We  relied  on  the  old  Peshito  version  made  in  the 
apostolic  age  and  the  greatest  of  lexicons  to  define  the 
words  when  lexicons  are  appealed  to  as  evidence.  The 
forced  rendering  of  Hebrews  vi,  4,  "  Who  once  submitted 
to  baptism  ^'*  by  "descending  into  the  baptistery/'f  is  suf- 
ficiently refuted  by  the  fact  that  no  such  innovation  as  a 
baptistery  was  in  existence  in  all  the  Christian  Church  till 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries.]; 

5.  Bernstein  confounds  amad  with  the  Arabic  gahmat, 
immerse,  another  word  altogether.     There  is  no  dip  in  the 

'^Le^natnudhUho  nechilio,  '*  submisit,"  as  well  as  "  desccndit,"  and  77ia- 
mudhithx)  is  baptism,  the  noun  in  the  New  Testament.  See  Schaaf  s 
Syr.  Lex.  N.  T. 

t  Since  the  above  was  written,  Dr.  Grave?,  who  in  the  debate  could 
not  be  induced  by  any  process  to  try  to  meet  my  facts  on  the  Syriac  and 
the  later  versions,  in  his  clandestine  way  of  rewriting  his  speeches  with 
mine  before  him,  and  by  accident  a  ^x/r^  of  which,  repassing  through 
Memphis,  I  saw  and  hastily  answered  in  transit,  professes  to  cite  Bern- 
stein's lexicon  to  Kirch's  Chrestomathy,  and  renders  amad,  "  he  was  dip- 
ped, ...  he  dipped,  etc.  The  point  of  the  arrow  sank  into  his  brain," 
etc.  We  reply,  1.  He  fails  to  give  us  the  original,  and  we  know  his  utter 
unreliability.  2.  Kirch's  Chrestomathy  is  made  up  of  the  Syriac  in  its 
latest  stage,  its  death-struggles  in  the  thirteenth  and  later  centuries,  es- 
pecially on  Bar-Hebra?us,  who  wrote  half  Arabic  half  Syriac  dialect  in 
the  last  part  of  the  thirteenth  century.  This  is  a  little  late.  3.  Bern- 
stein's lexicon  is  only  a  partial  lexicon  or  glossary,  defining  words  found 
in  this  late  author,  and  as  nsed  by  him,  not  as  i(sed  in  the  Bible.  Why 
quote  such  a  work?  4.  Dr.  G.  falsely  translates  the  lexicon  all  the 
way  through,  as  well  as  Bar  Ali !  He  renders  mersus,  imniersit  se,  di])- 
ped,  yet  the  same  word  he  in  the  same  sentence  translates  *'  sank," 
where  the  arrow  sank,  "immersit  se" — immersed  itself  into  the  brain. 

J  Stuart  on  Baptism,  by  J.  K.  Graves,  p.  183:  "This  practice  of 
building  baptisteries  is  loell  known  to  be  an  innovation  upon  the  more 
ancient  usage  of  the  church.  In  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  [a.d.  166] 
there  were  no  such  accommodations  as  these."  So  Wall,  vol.  2,  p,  457-8; 
Hist.  Inf.  Bap.;  and  cites  the  great  historian  Bingham  to  prove  they 
existed  not  till  about  fourth  century. 


32-i  BAPTISM. 

wholo  glossary  on  tliis  word.  Bar-Hebrseus  cites  *'the 
great  Basil"  to  justify  his  superstitious  ideas  of  the 
wonderful  virtue  of  water — '^  From  the  beginning  [the 
Holy  Spirit]  infused  life  into  the  waters"  (in  Gen.  i,  2). 
Hence  their  immersion  theory  to  absorb  the  sanctifying 
virtues  of  the  water ! 

Dr.  G.  actually  translates  Gutbier's  word  '^  haptizaviV^ 
on  amad  hy  "immerse"!!  (p.  388).  He  copies  Dr.  Yar- 
den's  renderings  on  Bar-Hebraeiis,  thirteenth  century,  still, 
where  Bar-Heb.  comments  on  Job  xli,  1,  saying  the  levi- 
athan "  plunged  in  the  depths  of  the  sea."  How  could  a 
leviathan,  that  was  already  in  the  depths  of  the  sea, 
'^plunge"  or  "dip"  himself,  in  a  Baptist  sense  of  dip? 
He  was  already  under  the  water.  What  is  the  meaning, 
then?  And  this  is  the  best  they  can  do  to  meet  our 
crushing  facts! 

There  is  no  record  or  hint  of  such.  In  the  days  of 
Justin  Martyr,  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  of  Iren- 
seus  and  Tcrtullian,  no  baptistery  Avas  known. 

But  though  we  rely  on  the  Bible  facts,  or  versions  of 
that  book,  let  us  take  up  the  literature  of  the  Nestorians 
and  Syrians  generally,  and  see  the  result. 

Dr.  G.  (p.  389)  cites  Numbers  xxxi,  23  (24) :  "All  that 
abideth  not  the  fire  ye  shall  plunge  it  (Syriac,  amad)  in 
water."  First,  this  is  the  only  place  in  the  Bible  where 
Castell,  Schaaf,  etc.  could  find  amad  used  for,  as  they 
thought,  immerse;  second,  it  is  not  a  case  of  baptism,  as 
in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  no  word  is  used  that  is  ever 
used  for  baptism;  third,  there  is  no  proof  of  immersion 
in  the  text.  The  Hebrew  phrase  so  rendered  is  in  the 
Vulgate  rendered,  "Shall  be  sanctified  by  the  water  of 
expiation." 

Dr.  G.  tells  us,  then  (p.  389),  "'His  grand  old  Syriac 


ANCIENT    VERSIONS    ON    BAPTIDZO.  325 

version  supports'  my  position  that  Romans  vi,  4,  refers  to 
water  baptism!"  But  he  says  not  how;  why?  It  reads 
in  the  Syriac  exactly  as  in  our  English  version,  and  has 
not  a  drop  of  water  in  it.  "  Therefore  (or  for)  Ave  are 
[present  tense]  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death" — 
lemaimtho.  The  great  Walton  renders  it  in  Latin,  Sepultl 
enim  sumus  cum  eo  per  baptisma  ad  mortum.  Where  is  the 
support?  He  makes  the  baptism  of  Christ  (Luke  xii,  50; 
Mark  x,  38,  39),  as  all  modern  immersionists  do,  refer 
to  his  ^^ sinking  in  a  flood  of  afflictions"  etc!  All  the 
fathers,  as  shown,  Syriac,  Latin,  Greek,  refer  that  bap- 
tism to  the  blood  and  water  on  the  cross  baptizing  him. 

AM  AD    IN    LITEEATURE. 

1.  In  a  discussion  among  the  ancient  Syrian  churches, 
on  many  things,  they  name  the  matters  of  the  form  of  the 
verb  they  use,  amad^  and  say,  ^'When  he  baptizes,  even 
with  the  inyocation  of  the  Trinity,  and  with  a  washing 
of  natural  water,  immersion,  or  sprinkling,  it  is  not  true 
baptism,"  "  unless  the  proper  word  is  used  also."  '•' 
Again,  "If,  when  he  baptizes,  he  uses  that  [form  of  amad^ 
for  the  present  imperative,  if  other  things  are  right,  espe- 
cially the  intention,  immersion  in  natural  water,  ablution, 
or  sprinkling,  with  the  invocation,"  etc. f 

2.  In  Bibliotheca  Orlentalis,  vol.  4,  page  260,  we  read, 
"When  Christ  the  Lord  was  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  say 
Simeon  the  Presbyter  and  John  Zugbi,  John  the  Baptist 
filled  a  little  vessel  with  the  water  that  flowed  from  his 
sacred  body,  and  preserved  it  until  the  day  he  was  be- 
headed, when  he  delivered  it  into  the  custody  of  his  dis- 

'"^  Bibliotheca  Orienialis,  torn,  iv,  CCL  (250),  abhitio,  immersione,  vel 
aspersione,  in  Latin. 

tlbid.,  in  oqtiam  naiuraleni  immersio,  ahlv.iio,  vel  ospersio,  etc. 


326  BAPTISM. 

ciple,  John  the  Evangelist.  To  this  same  John  the  Evan- 
gelist, they  add,  when  Christ  instituted  the  eucliaristic 
supper,  and  distributed  a  part  to  each  of  the  apostles,  he 
gave  a  double  portion;  the  rest  of  which  he  took,  and 
delivered  in  the  same  way  as  the  other — in  a  little  vessel 
of  water.  And,  afterward,  he  poured  into  this  same  ves- 
sel the  water  which  flowed  from  the  side  of  Christ  when 
hanging  on  the  cross ;  and  the  blood  that  flowed  from  his 
side  he  mixed  with  the  eucharistic  bread.  This,  they  say, 
was  the  leaven  of  the  eucharist,  that  the  leaven  of  bap- 
tism. For  the  apostles,  after  they  had  received  the  Holy 
Spirit,  before  they  w^nt  forth,  divided  this  water  and 
eucharistic  bread  among  themselves,  which  they  were  to 
use  as  an  element  in  administering  baptism.''     Now — 

1.  We  cite  this  not  as  a  fact,  but  as  showing  what 
those  ancient  Syrians  believed  as  to  Christ's  baptism  and 
that  practiced  under  the  apostles. 

2.  Christ  is  believed  to  have  stood  in  Jordan  to  be 
baptized.  The  water  was  poured  on  his  head,  and  '^  flowed 
down  his  sacred  side." 

3.  The  amount  put  in  little  water-vessels,  caught  from 
his  side  thus  and  from  the  cross,  was  sufficient  for  bap- 
tizing.    Hence  it  was  not  immersion. 

4.  In  the  same  great  Syriac  compilation  (tom.  iii,  357), 
the  Syrians  thus  held  as  to  baptism.  There  are  seven 
kinds  of  baptism  recorded  :  1.  .  .  .  washing.  2.  Legal 
baptism,  purifications  according  to  the  law  of  Moses.  3. 
Baptism  ...  of  cups,  brazen  vessels,  couches,  etc.  ...  6. 
Baptism  of  blood — I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,"* 
etc.     7.  Baptism  of  tears — mamudhitho  clheme. 

"•••  Syr,,  nioro  ve  niamunutho  aith  li  dhemad.  Yet  immersionists  per- 
sist in  referring  the  baptism  referred  to  here  to  "  overwhelming  "  suf- 
ferings in  the  garden,  and  to  "  sinking  in  &.  flood  of  afflictions  "  1  Heavy 
on  flood. 


ANCIENT    VERSIONS   ON    BAPTIDZO.  327 

1.  These  are  all  recorded  as  literal  baptisms  under  the 
head — Al  maniudthitho — baptism . 

2.  No  one  will  contend  that  the  blood  shed  in  martyr- 
dom, and  that  which  was  shed  by  Christ  on  his  own  body 
was  immersion. 

3.  Baptism  with  tears  was  not  a  clear  ease  of  dipping. 
Such  are  the  facts  in  the  Syriac,  Of  course  they  often 
immersed  '^  in  the  Dark  Ages,'^  and  as  often  mersed  the 
party  waist  deep  or  more,  and  baptized  by  affusion. 

Once  more,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  three  He- 
brew words  that  definitely  mean  immerse,  the  one  that 
often  applies  to  a  partial  dip,  tabhal,  and  the  numerous 
Greek  words  for  dip  and  immerse — hidkidzo,  kataduo,  kata- 
pendizo — immerse,  are  in  no  case  in  all  the  Bible  trans- 
lated by  amad  in  either  Syriac  or  Arabic.  Why  did  they 
not  do  so  if  that  word  meant  in  that  day  immerse?  Dip 
occurs  repeatedly  in  our  English  versions  in  both  Testa- 
ments, but  never  is  the  original  of  such  places  amad  in 
Syriac  or  Arabic, 


o28  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

The    Arabic   Version. 

Dr.  Gotch  says,  "  Of  native  words  employed  by  the 
Syriac,  the  Arabic,  ^thiopic,  Coptic,  etc.  all  signify  to 
immerse.''  Of  coarse  Drs.  A.  Campbell,  Graves,  Judd, 
Wilkes,  Brents,  etc.  follow  suite  in  this  assertion  as  well 
as  Ingham. 

Til  is  and  all  Arabic  versions,  having  the  same  render- 
ings of  baptldzo,  were  made  when  the  Arabic  was  the  lan- 
guage of  renown,  and  led  the  intellectual  world.  At  this 
time,  ^'the  Saracen  Empire  [Arabic]  was  dotted  all  over 
with  colleges,  ...  in  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  Egypt,  North 
Africa,"  etc.  (Draper).  They  made  translations  of  Plato, 
Aristotle,  the  Iliad,  Hippocrates,  Galen,  etc.  etc.  from  the 
Greek.  There  were  seventy  public  libraries  in  one  single 
province.  One  man  spoke  seventy-two  dialects.  The 
royal  court  was  rather  an  academy  of  learning  than  of 
statecraft.  Amid  this  blaze  of  intellectual  light  and 
knowledge  of  Greek  the  Arabic  versions  were  made.  Ge- 
senius  says,  ^^In  every  respect  the  most  perfect  source  of 
Hebrew  etymology  and  lexicography  is  the  Arabic,"  "  to 
it  [the  Arabic]  belongs  the  first  place  among  all  this  class 
of  philological  auxiliaries  "  (Bib.  Repos.  18,  33). 

1.  These  versions  render  baptidzo  by  amada,  the  same 
as  amad  in  Syriac  just  examined. 

2.  It  is  rendered  over  and  again  by  tsavagha^  the  same 
as  the  Syriac  tseva,  which  see  in  the  last  chapter. 


THE    ARABIC   VERSION.  329 

3.  Tliey  trcinslate  it  hy  gasala  (Luke  xi,  38;  Mark  vii, 
4),  and  its  nouns,  baptismos  and  baptlsma  (Heb.  vi,  2 ; 
Mark  vli,  4,  8)  by  the  noun-form  of  gasala.  Of  gasala, 
to  baptize,  wash,  besprinkle — 

(1)  No  lexicon  in  existence  renders  it  by  dip,  or  plunge, 
or  immerse. 

(2)  Castell,  wlio  had  native  Arabians  to  assist  him, 
renders  it  "  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  etc.  To  be  sprinkled  with 
Avater,  to  wash  diligently,  to  wash  off  the  body  (members), 
to  wash  oneself,  etc.,  to  moisten,  to  be  sprinkled,  ...  to 
besprinkle.^'  *  It  occurs  for  washing  the  face  (Matt,  vi, 
17;  Ps.  Ixxiii,  13;  Lev.  viii,  6),  and  when  the  head  is 
sprinkled  with  rose-water,  etc. 

In  the  face  of  the  fact  that  not  a  lexicon — neither  Go- 
Hus,  Freytag,  Kosegarten,  Catafago,  nor  the  great  Castell— 
gives  dip,  or  immerse,  or  plunge,  or  sink  for  gasala,  or 
its  nouns,  but  define  it  by  wash,  cleanse,  where  it  applies 
to  washing  the  face,  the  members,  dead  bodies,  and  sprin- 
klings, what  are  we  to  think  of  such  assertions,  not  to 
name  the  facts  of  the  first  chapter,  and  those  next  to 
come  ? 

Gasala  repeatedly  translates  nipto,  to  wash  the  hands 
that  means  to   rain   (Job  xx,  23) ;   e.  g.   brecho  in  Sym- 
machus's  version — rain  in  ours.    Yet  the  word  that  trans- 
lates such  a  word  translates  bapticlzo. 

CODEX  VATICANUS,  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

The  great  Codex  Vaticanus,  about  A.  D.  325,  translates 
baptidzo    by  sprinkle  (Mark  vii,  4).t     It  being  iie  Jew- 

*  Castel],  gasala,  lavii,  abluit,  etc.,  sudorc,  perfusus  fait,  .  .  .  diligen- 
ter  lavii,  perluit  ynemhra,  se  abluit,  etc.;  maduit,  perfusis  J  .tit,  .  .  .  iiv 
sperglt. 

t  Bi-riaG^vrrj.  h  rendered  there  pavrKTavrai,  "besprinkle. 


3o0  BAPTIS:S[. 


ish  baptism,  unauthorized  by  Christ,  the  copyist  translates 
it  into  its  mode  in  that  place. 


CODEX   SINAITICUS,  A.  D.  325. 

This  great  copy  of  the  Bible,  with  seven  other  ancient 
ones,  translates  baptisontai  (Mark  vii,  4)  by  sprinkle.* 


ITALA   AND  VULGATE. 

The  Italay  made  in  the  second  century  by  converts  of 
the  apostolic  age,  is,  next  to  the  Peshito,  the  most  valuable 
translation  we  have.  Jerome's  Vulgate  and  it  are  the 
same  on  those  points : 

1.  They  transfer  baptidzo  in  every  instance  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  translating  it  at  all. 

2.  They  translate  tabal  (Greek,  baptidzo)  (2  Kings  v,  14) 
by  wash,  lavo  (wash,  bedew,  sprinkle). 

3.  They  translate  baptOy  sprinkle  (Rev.  xix,  13). 

4.  They  translate  the  Chaldeo  for  baptize,  same  as  Syriac 
and  Arabic,  tzeva,  by  ''to  sprinkle^'  twice/f 

5.  They  never  translate  either  baptidzo  or  tabal  by  im- 
merse. 

^THIOPIC  VERSION. 

Of  this  version  that  zealous  Baptist,  Dr.  Gale,  says, 
'"The  Syriac  and  ^thiopic  versions,  which  for  their  an- 
tiquity must  be  thought  almost  as  valuable  and  authentic 
as  the  original  itself y  being  made  from  p>rimitive  copies,  in  or 
very  near  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  rendering  the  pas- 

"•=•  BawriGCiVTai  is  rendered  pavnauvrai. 
f  Daniel  iv,  conapergaiur,  mfunderis. 


THE   ARABIC    VERSION.  331 

sage  (Num.  xix,  13,  bapto)  by  words  that  signify  to  sprinkle, 
.  .  .  very  strongly  argue  that  he  (Origen)  has  preserved 
the  same  word  which  was  in  the  autograph."* 

This  is  more  just  of  the  Syriac,  Sahidic,  and  Itala. 
The  ^thiopic  has  a  word  expressing  definitely  to  immerse, 
maabj  ''  to  ov^erflow,  submerse."  It  is  never  used  for  bap- 
tize, etc.     Now  this  version  renders — 

1.  Bapto  by  to  spHnhhy  as  Dr.  Gale  observes. 

2.  It  renders  {kathavlsmoa)  purification,  always  per- 
formed by  sprinklings  (see  John  ii,  6;  Heb.  ix,  13,  19, 
21;  Num.  viii,  7;  xix,  13-15)  by  baptism. 

3.  It  never  renders  baptize  by  immerse  or  any  word 
equivalent  to  dip. 

4.  It  renders  bapdidzo  tamak,  which  Castell  renders, "  to 
be  baptized,  to  baptize. '^  Neither  he  nor  Hottinger  ren- 
ders it  by  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse.  It  is  the  same  as  tam- 
ash  in  other  Oriental  versions  —  same  word.  Schindler 
renders  it  in  Hiphil  form  (derivative  meaning)  by  plunge, 
wet,  dip,  wash,  and  gives  Psalm  vi,  7,  "baptized  my  couch 
with  my  tears,"  as  his  first  proof-text.f  It  is  kindred 
with  tamal  also,  which  never  implies  immersion,  but  con- 
stantly applies  to  aifusions.  It  renders  John  v,  4;  ix,  7, 
Siloam,  where  the  people  washed  by  baptistery,  as  the 
Syriac.  Castell  gives  both  j)lunge  and  moisten — rigavit, 
always  affusion — as  meanings  of  tamash. 

5.  This  version  renders  baptidzo  by  mo,  mot — "water." 
It  is  the  same  root  with  iiwh — "  sprinkle  with  water,  pour, 
rain,  water,  juice,  fluid,  water."  t      ^Pho,  moisten,  pour. 

*  Reflect,  on  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.,  Letter  V,  vol.  2,  118,  ed.  of  1862. 

t  Hiphil  of  tamash,  mersit,  Hnxit,  intinxit,  lavit  (Ps.  vi,  7),  lique- 
faciam. 

X  Castell,  aqua,  iierjusua  est,  pluviam  fudii,  .  .  .  aqua  .  .  .  aquam, 
etc.  —  no  immersion.  Hottinger,  tinxit,  baptizavit,  moisten,  baptize, 
^thiopic,  m'ho  liquescere,  hqy.pfieri,  fundi.     Castell,  2003. 


332  BAPTISM. 

Here  is  one  of  the  words  translated  from  haptidzo  that 
simply  means  to  water,  without  specifying  mode,  while 
the  same  word  essentially,  same  root,  means  to  sprinkle 
with  water,  water,  pour,  rain.  So  testifies  this  great 
author. 

The  Amharic,  a  later  version,  renders  it  as  the  one  just 
noticed  generally,  and  need  not  be  noticed  separately. 


THE    COPTIC. 

This  version  of  the  third  century,  made  in  Egypt 
where  learning  was  then  in  a  high  state  of  cultivation, 
translates — 

1.  Bapto  by  sprinkle  (Rev.  xix,  13). 

2.  It  renders  baptidzo  by  tamaka,  same  as  the  above  in 
^thiopic,  a  word  of  affusion. 

3.  It  never  renders  it  by  immerse. 


In  the  third  century  the  Egyptian  version  was  made. 

1.  It  renders  baptidzo  by  oms,  which  is  of  the  same 
root  as  amada,  amad  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  wash,  baptize, 
s]>rinkle,  make  wet. 


BASMURIC,  THIRD  CENTURY. 

1.  This  version  translates  bapto  by  sprinkle  in  Revela- 
tion xix,  13. 

2.  It  habitually  transfers  baptidzo. 

3.  It    never    renders    baptidzo    by   immerse,   dip,   or 
plunge. 


THE   ARABIC   VERSION.  333 


SAHIDIC,  SECOND   CENTURY. 


1.  It  transfers  baptidzo. 

2.  It  never  renders  it  immerse. 

3.  It  translates  bapto  sprinkle  (Rev.  xix,  13). 

While  we  only  have  these  facts  from  these  versions, 
we  regret  we  have  not  copies  of  them  personally ;  for  then 
no  doubt  our  researches  would  bring  out  valuable  and 
startling  facts  as  in  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  Vulgate,  and 
ancient  literature,  etc.  Having  the  Persic  we  are  enabled 
to  give  more  light  on  it,  however. 


PERSIC. 

The  Persic  renders  baptidzo  by  several  words.  It  has 
a  word  (autha)  meaning  emphatically  to  immerse.  See 
Golius  in  Castell,  p.  408.  But  it  never  renders  baptidzo 
by  it  or  any  word  implying  immersion.  It  renders  bap- 
tidzo— 

1.  By  sitstan,  shustidan,  thus  defined  in  Golius's  lex- 
icon: Washing,  baptism;  to  wash  (besprinkle,  cleanse); 
washing,  cleansing,  baptize.  [Lavaorum,  baptismus,  la- 
mre.]  Gen.  xvii,  4;  xix,  2;  Ex.  ii,  5;  John  iii,  25  {lotio), 
lotus;  John  xiii,  10,  baptizare;  Matt,  iii,  6-13.     Castell. 

2.  It  renders  it  by  shuhar,  shue,  ^'  to  give  a  bath  or  ad- 
minister a  washing  [pour  water  for  it] ;  to  fall  in  drops  of 
water,  distill;  to  baptize.  [Lavandum  dare,  stillare,  .  . 
baptizare.''^     Castell.] 

3.  It  renders  purifying  (John  iii,  25)  by  baptism. 

4.  Baptidzo  is  translated  into  the  word  used  Exodus  ii, 
5,  washed,  epi,  at  the  river;  Genesis  xviii,  4,  where  it  was 
with  ^' a  little  water;''  in  John  xiii,  10,  where  Christ  washed 


334  BAPTISM. 

their  feet,  unquestioDably  by  applying  the  water;  for  he 
would  not  plunge  all  their  feet  into  the  same  basin,  in  "  un^ 
clean  ^^  water.  It  was  water  "  upon "  the  feet.  Luke  vii, 
38,  39-44. 


ITALA,  BEGINNING   OF   SECOND   CENTUEY. 

1.  This  version  renders  bapto  by  sprinkle,  asperso. 

2.  It  never  renders  baptidzo  by  dip  or  immerse.  This 
is  the  more  remarkable  if  baptidzo  was  equivalent  to  im- 
merse, since  immerse  is  a  Latin  word,  and  this  Latin  ver- 
sion should  have  used  it  if  baptidzo  meant  immerse.  That 
was  the  very  place  for  it. 

3.  It  renders  tabhal  by  lavit  (2  Kings  v,  14),  wash,  be- 
sprinkle. 

4.  It  transfei*s  baptidzo  throughout. 

5.  It  renders  baptize  in  Chaldee  by  sprinkle,  consper- 
gatur. 

JEROME'.S   VULGATE,    A.D.    383. 

The  Vulgate,  so  patiently  rendered  by  the  learned 
Jerome,  based  on  the  Itala,  but  made  more  smooth  and 
elegant  in  style,  is,  like  the  Itala,  of  great  value. 

L  It  translates  bapto  by  sprinkle  (Rev.  xix,  13).* 

2.  It  transfers  baptidzo  habitually. 

3.  It  never  renders  baptidzo^  or  any  word  for  baptize, 
by  immerse. 

4.  It  translates  tabhal  (Greek,  baptidzo)  (2  Kings  v,  14) 
by  lavit y  wash,  besprinkle. 

5.  It  translates  baptize  (tseva)  (Dan.  iv,  22)  sprinkle. f 

*  Greek  (ietaixuhov  aifiuTi.     Beza :  Et  amicius  erat  veste  ilncid  sari- 
gutne,     Vulgate,  Etvesiitus  erat  vesfe  aspersa  sanguine. 
t  Daniel  x,  22,  et  rore  cceli  infunderis. 


THE    ARABIC    VERSION.  335 

6.  It  translates  the  same  word  {tseva)  in  Daniel  iv,  20, 
sprinkle.  * 

LUTHERAN  VERSION,  1522. 

The  Lutheran  version,  1522,  renders  baptidzo  by — 

1.  TaufeUy  to  baptize,  without  implying  mode.  But 
when  tlie  version  was  made  sprinkling  and  pouring  were 
the  general,  yea,  universal  practice.  This  all  acknowl- 
edge, and  A.  Campbell  says  so,  quoting  Erasmus. f  Lu- 
ther poured  the  water  on  the  infantas  head  when  he  said, 
'^Ich  taufe  euch  mit  wasser.^^  It  is  downright  dishonesty 
to  pretend  that  by  taufen  he  and  the  various  German  trans- 
lators meant  dip,  whatever  may  have  been  its  former  force. 
With  them  it  neither  meant  dip,  sprinkle,  nor  pour,  but 
was  used  as  tlie  Latins  used  baptidzo  and  tingoy  for  baptize. 

2.  In  2  Kings  v,  14,  tabal — baptidzo;  Luke  xi,  38; 
Mark  vii,  4,  baptidzo  is  rendered  ivasehen. 

3.  Bapto  is  rendered  in  Revelation  xix,  13,  sprinkle 
{besprengt). 

The  Lusitanian  version  renders  both  words  in  the  same 
places  the  same — baptidzo,  wash;  bapto,  sprinkle. 

The  Jerusalem  Targum  renders  raohats  ("  wash,  pour") 
by  tavalj  and  tabal  by  raohats;  the  latter  also  by  ^'washed 

"•■•  Daniel  x,  20,  ei  rore  coell  conspergattjr. 

t  Chris.  Baptisms,  p.  192:  "  Erasmus,  who  spent  some  time  in  Eng- 
land, during  the  reign  of  Henry  VTII,  observes,  <  With  us  [the  Dutch], 
the  baptized,  have  the  water  poured  on  them.  In  England  they  are 
dipped.' "  And  yet  Judd,  Ingham,  Brents,  Graves,  all  repeat  the  oft- 
refated  assumption  that  tavfen  was  meant  by  the  German  of  Luther  lor 
immerse,  and  so  render  it!  So  of  all  the  kindred  versions,  in  the  face 
of  the  fact  that  all  those  nations  baptize  by  sprinkling,  as  A.  Campbell 
admits,  and  they  all  knoAv.  Those  versions  all  use  different  words  in 
their  versions  for  the  dip  of  our  version.  But  we  have  abundantly 
seen  how  they  treat  lexicons  of  all  kinds,  authorities,  and  versions  as 
well. 


33G  BAPTISM. 

their  face  with  tears"  (Gen.  xliii,  30).  This  shows  that 
tliese  words  were  words  of  affusion. 

The  Arabic  and  the  Targum  render  Psalm  vi,  6,  7, 
'^  wet  my  couch  with  my  tears,"  hrcGho,  with  the  word  that 
translates  baptidzo  and  tabal. 

It  is  useless  to  multiply  facts.    The  sura  of  all  this  is — 

1.  For  fifteen  hundred  years  after  the  Christian  era  not 
a  single  version  made  from  the  original  Scriptures  supports 
a  case  of  immersion. 

2.  Every  version  made  supported  affusion,  and  with 
overwhelming  force.  We  have  not  quoted  Wycliffe  and 
several  German  versions  falsified  by  Conant  as  made  from 
the  Greek.  They  were  all  made  from  the  Latin,  and  hence 
have  nothing  to  do  with  baptidzo  or  bapto.  They  would 
support  us,  especially  Wycliffe,  who  has  baptize  wash, 
and  for  the  aspersa  of  Jerome,  sprinkle.  But  Wycliffe 
never  saw  a  Greek  Testament.  The  same  applied  to  the 
Rheims,  made  from  the  Latin.* 

These  versions  establish  the  following  facts: 

1.  That  affusion  is  so  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible  as  the 
proper  mode  of  baptism  that  all  the  pains  and  prejudice 
of  James's  translators,  being  honest  but  deeply  prejudiced, 
could  not  obliterate  them. 

2.  That  bapto  continued  to  mean  sprinkle  as  well  as  to 
stain,  color,  and  dip. 

3.  That  baptidzo  never  was  synonymous  with  dip,  plunge 
or  immerse  in  any  age  of  the  world. 

<^'The  Danish  version,  1524,  has  dobe,  baptize;  the  Swedish,  1534, 
has  dopa,  baptize;  the  Dutch,  1560,  doopen,  baptize.  These  words  may 
once  have  represented  dip — primarily,  moisten,  wet,  for  aught  we  care. 
The  point  is,  what  did  the  translators  mean  by  these  words?  No  honest 
man  will  prete^id  that  they  meant  immerse,  since  they  all  then  baptized 
by.  sprinkling  in  those  countries,  all  immersion  authorities  so  testifying. 
Hence  they  would  use  those  words  when  sprinkling  the  parties  as  we 
jse  baptize. 


THE   ARABIC    VERSION.  337 

4.  That  baptize  is  translated  by  words  meaning  to  wash, 
to  cleanse,  to  sprinkle,  besprinkle  in  all  the  best  and 
purest  versions  from  the  apostolic  to  our  times. 

5.  Finally,  no  version  of  the  fifteen  centuries  after  the 
Christian  era  renders  haptidzo,  or  words  for  baptize,  by  im- 
merse or  its  equivalent  in  any  language. 

22 


338  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

Washing,  Cleansing,  Baptism — Wash  in  the  Old 
Testament,  Baptize  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  inventive  genius  of  immersionists  is  only  equalled 
by  their  marvelous  capacity  at  blundering,  and  their  bold- 
ness in  trampling  under  foot  every  law  of  language  is  only 
surpassed  by  their  blind  persistence  in  reproducing  and 
reaffirming  all  the  old  quotations  that  have  been  exposed 
as  garbled  and  entirely  unreliable. 

They  find  color,  dye,  stain  as  definitions  of  bapto,  tingo^ 
etc.,  and  all  assert  that  color,  stain,  dye,  come  from  dip! 
They  see  wash,  cleanse,  as  meanings  of  baptidzo ;  they 
(»ome  from  dip  also ! 

facts  on  wash. 

1.  The  wash  [Hebrew,  rachats;  Greek,  louo,  niptOfpluno, 
Jdudzo]  .  .  of  the  Pentateuch,  es^^ecially  in  Exodus,  Levit- 
icus, and  Numbers,  all  parties  agree  is  the  baptidzo  with  its 
nouns  of  the  New  Testament.  However  much  the  design 
and  use  may  have  varied,  the  wash  of  the  one  is  the  bap- 
tism of  the  other.  We  quoted  much  on  this  subject  in  the 
chapter  on  the  laver  baptisms. 

2.  All  immersionists  as  well  as  affusionists  generally 
maintain  that  the  washing  of  Acts  xxii,  16;  Ephesians  v, 
'26 ;  Titus  V,  5,  6 ;  Hebrews  x,  22,  is  a  repeated  reference 
to  baptism,  immersionists  holding  it  to  be  baptism  itself. 


WASI-IIXG,  CLEANSING,    BAPTISM.  339 

Dr.  Carson  says,  "The  word  [ixiehats,  wash]  alv/ays 
includes  dipping,  and  never  signifies  less.^^  * 

3.  All  are  agreed  that  the  Greek  word  baptidzo  means 
wash,  cleanse,  and  most  writers  add  purify.  First.  All 
standard  lexicons,  classic  or  biblical,  render  it  wash,  or 
cleanse.  Second.  All  ancient  versions  without  an  excep- 
tion, where  they  translate  the  word,  at  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  render  it  wasli.f 

4.  All  parties  agree  that  for  full  fifteen  hundred  years — 
from  the  days  of  Moses  till  the  close  of  the  first  century — 
from  the  origin  of  baptism  as  a  sacred,  heaven-ordained 
rite,  to  the  commission  of  Christ  to  baptize,  wash  was  con- 
stantly used,  and  for  thirteen  hundred  years  was  the  main 
word  used  for  the  rite — was  the  Avord  employed  at  its 
first  performance  by  Moses  (Lev.  viii,  6) ;  hence  the  pro- 
priety of  looking  into  this  word  in  the  various  languages 
with  more  pains  than  has  been  the  custom. 

On  Hebrews  x,  22,  Dr.  Graves  cites  and  comments  on 
it  thus :  " '  Our  bodies  washed  with  pure  Avater.'  I  have 
no  doubt  that  this  passage  refers  to  Christian  baptism.'^J 


THE    WASH    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    THE    BAPTISM   OF 
THE    NEAV. 

"Wash,  rachats  in  the  HebreAV  (Ex.  xxx,  18-22;  xl, 
30-33;  Lev.  viii,  6;  Heb.  x,  22;  Eph.  v,  26),  all  immer- 
sionists  say  are  the  divers  baptisms  of  Hebrews  ix,  10. 

The  only  question  noAV  is.  What  was  the  mode  of  these 

»  Keflections  on  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.,  Letter  IV,  p.  94,  vol.  2 ;  Ox- 
ford Ed.,  1862,  in  two  volumes. 

t  Syriac,  amad,  secho ;  Arabic,  amada,  gasala ;  Latin,  lavo :  German, 
^oaschen,  etc. 

X  Carrollton  Debate,  p.  186. 


340  BAPTISM. 

baptisms?  As  far  as  facts  go  we  have  giv^en  enough  in  the 
chapter  on  the  laver  baptisms.  But  we  wish  to  take  up 
the  word  wash  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  and 
examine  it  on  its  own  merits  now,  and  see  how  the  word 
stands  as  between  us  and  Drs.  Carson,  Gale,  A.  Campbell, 
Conant,  Bingham,  J.  R.  Graves,  and  Elder  Wilkes,  etc., 
immersionists.     Now — 

1.  No  lexicon  in  existence  ever  defined  the  word  [ra- 
chats]  by  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge,  or  any  equivalent  word. 

2.  No  immersionist  we  ever  read  or  heard  ventured  to 
render  it  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge. 

3.  Whenever  it  is  rendered  by  a  modal  term,  it  is  in 
every  case  either  sprinkle,  pour,  or  a  word  equivalent 
thereto.     Proof — 

(1)  Fiirst,  the  greatest  of  all  Hebrew  lexicographers, 
gives  as  its  meaning,  "to  wash,'"'  and  adds  that  its  radical 
or  primary  meaning  is  "to  flow,  to  pour  out,  to  drip." 

(2)  It  is  rendered  cheo  (jioo),  to  pour,  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sion [LXX]  mainly  used  by  the  apostles. 

(3)  It  is  used  where  Joseph  washed  his  face  (Gen. 
xliii,  30).     Was  that  immersion? 

(4)  It  is  translated  in  Jonathan's  Targum  by  "  washed 
his  face  with  his  tears."  '^ 

(5)  It  is  of  the  same  root  of  and  akin  to,  raehash,^  "  to 
pour  out." 

(6)  It  is  translated  nipto  in  the  Septuagint  repeatedly, 
and  several  times  where  it  is  wash  {ek)  out  of  the  laver, 
Hebrew  min^  out  of.  % 

The  washing  effected  by  rachats  in  the  Bible,  was  by 
only  a  little  over  one  fifth  of  a  pint  of  water,  when  not  out 

■•••  Shazzag  min  dimshon. 
■\  Rachash  efudU  (Castell). 
X  See  the  Laver  Baptisms. 


WASHING,    CLEANSING,    BAPTISM.  341 

of  the  laver.  Hence  the  washing,  out  of  the  jars,  as  given 
in  John  ii,  6,  George  Campbell,  A.  Campbell,  render 
(Mark  vii,  3),  "  Wash  their  hands  often  by  pouring  a  little 
water  on  them/^  Nipto  is  the  word  there  used.  Hinton 
(Baptist)  cites  Jahn,  Koenoel,  etc.  to  sustain  this  rendering. 
(7)  In  Arabic  rachats,  wash,  and  in  ^thiopic,  means 
primarily  to  sweat,  perspire,  sweat  copiously.  Then  it 
means  to  wash,  be  washed,  cleansed.  Intensified,  it  is 
rachash  in  ^thiopic,  and  means  ^^to  bedew,  make  wet, 
same  as  the  Hebrew  rachats^  to  moisten,  to  water."  ^ 


WASH- 


-VD^ — Aouu) — BAPTIZE     IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


(8)  Nipto  [v£'n:ra»],  wash  is  the  translation  of  the  He- 
brew word  matar,  to  rain,  shed  forth  water.  It  always 
implies  aifasion.  Its  noun  occurs  in  the  Bible  thirty-seven 
times,  always  implying  affusion.  The  verb  is  rendered 
by  the  Greek  (brechoj)  rain,  ten  times.  Yet  this  word  is 
rendered  nipto,  wash.     Nay — 

(9)  The  place  in  our  verson  seized  on  as  a  favorite  text 
by  immersionists — Leviticus  vii,  28,  "  rinsed  in  water  " — 
is  in  the  Greek  washed  or  besprinkled  with  water.| 

(10)  Rachats  in  Hebrew  is  often  rendered  in  the  Septu- 
agint  version  by  louo,  wash,  in  Greek,  which  no  lexicon 
ever  issued  ever  defined  by  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge,  but 
by  wash,  cleanse.  Whenever  louo  is  rendered  by  a  modal 
word  it  is  either  sprinkle,  or  pour,  or  both.     See  below. 

(11)  Rachats  is  rendered  by  pluno  in  the  LXX  also. 
which  all  lexicons  render  wash,  and  whenever  modal,  it 
is  always  sprinkle,  or  pour,  or  both.    See  below  on  it. 

^Maduit,  humidus  fuit,  i.  q.  Heb.  Vni,  madefecit,  rigavit  Castell, 
Heptagl.  3721. 

t  Matar ;  Greel:,  l3pex(o. 
X  K?.i'(jei  i'^art,  khisei  hudati. 


342  BAPTISM. 

(12)  This  word  rachats,  thus  translated  and  used  in  the 
Bible  before  apostolic  times,  is  translated  baptize  {tabhal) 
frequently  by  the  ancient  Hebrew  (Chaldee)  Targums. 

Is  it  not  refreshingly  cool,  then,  in  Dr.  Gale,  indorsed 
by  Drs.  Graves,  Carson,  etc.  etc.,  to  say,  "  The  word  ra- 
chats always  includes  dipping  and  never  signifies  less'^? 

3.  Loiio  \_Uua}]  thus  used,  rendered  also  baptize  in  Sy- 
riac  in  Susanna,  as  shown  in  the  chapter  on  Versions,  is  the 
word  immersionists  render  as  they  do  rachats  in  Hebrew, 
by  "  to  bathe,''  instead  of  wash  or  cleanse,  as  if  bathe  were 
a  religious  or  ceremonial  use  of  water !  Dr.  Graves  clings 
desperately  to  bathe. 

Liddell  &  Scott's  English  edition:  ^^Louo,  to  wash; 
properly,  to  wash  the  body ;  also  to  pour  [water  for  wash- 
ing] ;"  *  ^'Loutrisy  a  woman  employed  to  wash  Minerva's 
Temple."  Here  her  name  is  a  "  washer."  Was  the  tem- 
ple dipped  ? 

What  are  the  additional  facts  here  ?  The  native  Greek 
lexicographer,  Galen,  born  A.  d.  130,  defining  this  word  louo, 
puts  it  thus  :  ^'  Louo,  to  wash,  to  pour,  or  sprinkle."  The 
Eti/mologicon,  a  native  Greek  lexicon,  defines  it  thus:  "To 
sprinkle,  to  besprinkle,  and  to  wash.^f  Hesychius  thus: 
To  sprinkle,  to  besprinkle,  etc.! 

Pickering,  in  his  later  new  edition  of  his  Greek  lexi- 
con, gives  it:  "Loutrorij  pi.  [plural]  loutra,  libations  for 
the  dead."  ^'Loutrophoros,  one  who  brings  water  for  bath- 
ing (Euripides,  358) ;  a  youth  of  either  sex  who  brought 
water  and  poured  it  on  the  tomb  of  an  unmarried  person, 
(Demos.,  1086,  15,  etc.).     Here   the   Greek  word  wash, 

*  Ingham  (Baptist),  Hand-Book  on  Bap.,  p.  445,  thus  also  cites  him. 
t  Alovdo)  [asperffo']  Karaxeetv  ei  lovkv  (Stephanus's  Thesaurus). 
X  Alovdo,  Ka-avrTif/cai,  perfundere,  rigai'e,  6td?ie?iVfj.evov,  igitur  est  pro 
a'lovTjcai.     S.'s  Thesaurus  sub  ?iovu. 


WASHING,    CLEANSING,    BAPTISM.  343 

"bathe/'  in  verb  and  noun  forms  alike,  refer  to  wash,  bathe 
as  effected  generally  by  affusion,  not  by  immersion.  .• 

Under  ^'loutrocheo^^  Pickering,  so  much  relied  on  by 
Dr.  Graves,  gives,  ^' to  pour  out  water  for  bathing  J' 

Henry  Stephanus's  Thesaurus,  the  most  elaborate  lexicon 
of  the  Greeek  ever  published  in  the  world,  defines  loiio 
thus:  "To  w^ash.  In  Hippocrates  [a  Greek  medical 
author]  it  is  not  merely  to  wash,  but  also  to  sprinkle.  In 
like  manner  Galen  uses  it  in  his  lexicon  where — ^  for  these 
are  appointed,  some  to  pour  cold,  the  others  to  pour  warm 
water  upon  those  who  are  bathing.'  "  "  Loutrochoos,  pour- 
iug  water  for  washing" — "sprinkled  wdth  cold  water."* 
Let  us  now  hear  several  of  the  latest  and  greatest  Greek 
lexicons  on  wash. 

Rost  and  Palm  and  Passow  all  define  it  alike,  as  well 
as  the  still  later  Pape,  1874,  Liddell  &  Scott,  thus :  "  Louo, 
to  wash  ',  properly  to  wash  the  body ;  also  to  pour  [water 
for  washing]."  f  Passow,  Rost,  and  Palm,  under  hallo, 
which  some  think  was  the  root  of  hapto,  say,  "  In  the 
middle  voice,  to  sprinkle  oneself,  ...  to  pour,  to  pour 
out,  to  sprinkle  the  water  upon  the  body,  i.  e.  to  bathe; 
.  .  ,  to  besprinkle  oneself  with  bath-water  J'  % 
Likewise  Pape,  under  ballo :  "That  is,  to  besprinkle 
oneself  with  the  bath- waters."  §      How  does  this  "pan 

*  'ETTLfjallelv  {6e  ■&epjLcbv)  IeTieovgl,  .  .  .  aqumn  ad  lavandam  fandens, 
frigida  perfundor. 

tThis  pet  of  immersionists  still  thus  defines  it,  with  the  bracketed 
words  as  above,  but  Drisdel  took  it  out  of  the  American  Edition,  as  in 
baptidzo,  to  appease  Baptist  fury. 

t  Im  med.  sich  besprengen,  xpoa  lovrpolg  {louo),  wegiessen,  ausgiessen, 
sprengen,  .  .  .  lovrpa  ettI  xpoog  {louo),  i.  e.  baden,  .  .  .  wasser  in  ein 
gefass  giessen,  XP'^'^- 

§  AovTpolg,  SICH  MIT  BADE-WASSER  BESPRENGEN.  Here  louo  wash  is 
pour  and  sprinJde  for  the  bath.  BalAw  .  .  .  XP^^^  ^alleaOai  lovrpoi^,  sich 
mit  bade-wasser  besprengen. 


344  BAPTISM. 

out"  for  immerse  as  the  bathe  of  the  Greeks?  But  hear 
once  more  Liddell  &  Scott,  Dr.  Graves^s  favorite  lexicon. 
Under  chutla,  plural  noun  from  cheo,  to  pour  "  water  for 
washing  or  bathing.'^  ^^  Hence  chutho,  to  wash,  bathe, 
anoint."     Thus  from  pour  comes  wash,  bathe  again. 

Another  word  for  sprinkle,  hudraino,  is  defined  by  lexi- 
cons thus :  "  To  wash,  sprinkle,  wet,  moisten,  bedew,  pour 
out."  *  Does  rachats  or  louo,  wash,  ^'  always  include  dip- 
ping and  never  signify  less"?t  Liddell  &  Scott  define 
loutrisy  noun  from  louo,  wash :  "  A  woman  employed  to 
wash  Minerva^s  temple J^  How  did  she  dip  or  immerse  this 
Avonder  of  the  world.  It  is  in  order  for  some  good  im- 
mersionist  to  rise  and  speak.  Rachats ^  wash,  is  rendered 
often  by  the  Greek  Avord  jjZi^no  in  the  Bible.  Native 
Greeks  define  bapto  and  baptidzo  by  piano,  wash,  also. 

Stephanus  defines  pluno  by  wash,  cleanse,  and  also  by 
'Ho  wash  with  tears,  pour  forth  tears,"  and  "  to  make  wet," 
"  watering  by  sprinkling  with  warm  water."  % 

Passow,  Rost,  Palm,  Pape  define  it  in  substance  as  tlie 
first  pluno,  "  to  wash,  wash  off,  cleanse,  purify,"  .  .  .  funda- 
mentally "to  moisten,  wet;  Latin,  to  rain,  flow."  § 

Tlius  we  see  that  pluno,  Avash,  comes  from  the  Avord 
rain,  sustaining  all  our  views  on  philology  and  annihi- 
lating the  bold  assertions  that  Avash  necessarily  implies 
dip  or  that  it  implies  it  at  all.  Pour  comes  to  mean  Avash. 
Sprinkle  means  to  wash.  Rain  comes  to  mean  to  wash. 
Yet  they  say  Avash,  bathe,  implies  immersion. 

*  Graves  gives  it  as  above. 

t  Gale's  Keflec.  Wall's  History  Inf.  Baptism ;  A.  Campbell's  Chris. 
Baptism,  pp.  85-6;   Chris.  Baptist,  1101. 

XLachrymas  eff under e  .  .  .  madefacere  et  irrigaJis  perfusio  aqua  fcr- 
vida  (Thesaurus  Greek  Lin.,  Stephanus). 

§  Passow:  Tilvvu,  waschen,  spiilen,  auswaschen,  abspiilen,  reinigen. 
.  .  .  auschelten,  strafen,  wie  unser  einem  den  kopf  waschen,  .  .  .  be- 
netzen.  befouchten,  wo  denn  das  Lat.  phin  v.  iJ>io. 


WASHING,    CLEANSING,    BAPTISM.  345 

In  the  Latin,  as  especially  we  have  seen  that  all  Latin- 
Greek  lexicons  translate  l3anTi!^a>,  baptidzoj  by  lavo,  wash, 
when  they  come  to  the  New  Testament  meaning  of  that 
word,  we  give  all  the  best  standards  and  latest. 

1.  Schiller  &  Luenemann^  edited  by  F.  P.  Leverett 
{Magnum  Tot.),  etc. :  '^  Law  (louo,  Greek),  to  be  washed, 
to  bathe.  Figuratively,  to  wash  or  bathe ;  i.  e.  to  moisten, 
besprinkle,  bedew.     Also  to  wash  away,  to  remove.^' 

2.  Freund^s  great  work  verbatim  as  the  above. 

3.  Ainsworth :  "  Lavo,  to  wash,  to  rinse,  to  bathe,  to 
besprinkle." 

4.  White  (1873) :  ^^Lavo  (akin  to  h)uaj),  to  wash,  batbe, 
lave;  to  bathe  oneself,  to  bathe;  to  wash,  of  the  sea,  to 
flow  over,  wet;  of  tears — to  wet,  moisten,  bathe,  bedev/, 
to  sprinkle,  wet." 

As  in  all  the  cases,  so  here,  wherever  mode  is  expressed 
it  is  affusion.  Yet  they  will  tell  you  that  wash  was  always 
to  immerse  in  the  Bible! 

The  laver  baptism  further  confirms  all  the  above.  John 
ii,  6,  shows  it  incontrovertibly  as  well.  Compare  2  Kings 
iii,  11;  Numbers  xix,  21,  22;  Leviticus  x,  34;  xv,  34-36; 
Lightfoot's  Horffi  Heb.  2,  p.  416.  '^Elisha  poured  the 
water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah"  for  his  washing.  This 
also  Lightfoot^s  facts  from  the  rabbins  demonstrate :  They 
allot  one  fourth  part  of  a  log  for  the  washing  of  one  per- 
son's hands;  it  may  be  of  two;  half  a  log  for  three  or 
four;  a  whole  log  for  five  to  ten,  nay,  to  one  hundred, 
Avith  this  provision,  saith  Rabbi  Jose,  that  the  last  that 
washeth  hath  no  less  than  a  fourth  part  of  a  log  for  him- 
self. A  log  is  five  sixths  (f)  of  a  pint.  Now  how  could 
two  persons  be  w^ashed  with  the  fourth  of  five  sixths  of  a 
pint?  One  hundred  washed  with  five  sixths  of  a  pint  of 
water.     Could   thev  immerse    their  hands   in  it?     Could 


346  BAPTISM. 

one  man  immerse  both  hands  in  one  ninth  of  a  pint? 
Does  not  this  show  it  was  by  sprinkling?  In  Lightfoot, 
from  folio  21,  22,  we  read  of  Rabbi  Abika,  who  being  in 
prison,  washed  with  half  the  water  brought  him  to  drink. 
Did  he  immerse  his  hands  in  the  drinking  vessel?  No 
such  thing  was  demanded  or  practiced.  Yet  in  the  face  of 
all  these  undenied  and  undeniable  records,  with  not  one 
item  to  the  contrary  to  be  found  any  where,  immersionists 
set  up  the  claim  that  rachats,  louo,  nipto,  lavo — wash — im- 
plies immerse  every  time  in  the  Bible;  that  wash  is  derived 
from  immerse — a  thing  so  absolutely  preposterous  that  not 
a  word  that  properly  and  strictly  means  immerse  in  the 
whole  world  in  any  language  ever  means  wash,  or  one  that 
means  properly  to  dip  as  its  primary  meaning.  On  the 
contrary,  wash  is  constantly  derived  from  words  that  pri- 
marily mean  to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to  moisten  or  wet,  to 
water,  to  flow,  rain,  shed  forth.  They  all  teach  that  bap- 
tldzo  does  mean  to  wash  or  apply  to  it ;  that  baptklzo  was 
implied  always  in  the  rachats,  louo. 


MODEEN    COMMENTATOES   AND   CEITICS.  347 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

Modern  Commentators  and  Critics. 

Imraersionists  cite  commentators  who  admit,  as  all  men 
do,  that  sometimes  baptidzo  means  immerse  and  apply  it 
as  an  admission  that  it  never  means  sprinkle  or  pour  or 
admits  of  baptism  by  such  modes.  Examples  innumer- 
able could  be  given  from  their  earliest  authorities  to  their 
latest.     But  we  forbear  to  cite  them  so  often. 

1.  Alford,  on  Mark  vii,  4:  "The  haptmnoi,  as  applied 
to  hlinoi  (couches  at  meals),  were  certainly  not  immersions, 
but  sprinklings  or  affusions  of  water/^  On  Acts  ii,  41, 
vol.  2,  p.  25,  he  says,  "Almost  without  doubt  this  first 
baptism  must  have  been  administered,  as  that  of  the  first 
Gentile  converts  was  (see  chap,  x,  p.  47,  and  note),  by  affu- 
sion or  sprinkling,  not  by  immersion.     Italics  his. 

2.  Fairbairn:  "The  ^divers'  [in  Hebrews  ix,  10 — ^di- 
vers baptisms']  evidently  points  to  the  several  uses  of 
water,  such  as  we  know  to  have  actually  existed  under  the 
law — sprinklings,  washings,  bathings."  * 

Baumgarten,  another  of  the  great  modern  scholars  of 
Europe,  German,  "  The  Baptism  of  Saul ''  .  .  .  he  "  is  bap- 
tized ...  by  means  of  the  water  poured  upon  him.^f 
Again,  "With  a  part  of  the  same  water"  used  in  washing 
the  apostles'  stripes,  "the  keeper  of  the  prison  and  all  his 

*  Hermeneut.  Manual,  Art.  Baptidzo. 
tCom.  on  Acts  ix,  1-36,  p.  238-9. 


348  BAPTISM. 

were   baptized  .  .  .  without   the   dipping   of   the   whole 
body  in  the  open,  running  water/^* 

4.  Bengel,  a  universal  favorite  with  all  critics,  ^^  Gno- 
mon/^ a  commentary,  like  Alford's  and  Baumgarten's, 
only  for  the  critical  scholar :  ^'  Immersion  in  baptism,  or 
at  least  the  sprinkling  of  water  upon  the  person,  repre- 
sented burial;  burial  is  a  confirmation  of  death.^^  On 
Eomans  vi,  4,  vol.  3. 

5.  Stier,  one  of  the  most  careful,  able,  and  volumi- 
nous of  German  commentators,  says,  ^' Baptidzo  occurs 
often  in  the  sense  of  mere  washing.'^  He  supposes  at 
times  they  may  have  been  ^^  dipped,  ^^  ^Svhere  otherwise 
baptism  be  administered  by  sprinkling,  as  probably  with 
the  thousands  on  the  day  of  Pentecost/^  Reden  Jesu, 
viii,  307,  note. 

6.  Bloomfield,  Greek  text  on  Hebrews  ix,  10:  Bap- 
tisms— "Bap.  denotes  those  ceremonial  ablutions  of  various 
sorts,  some  respecting  priests,  others  the  people  at  large, 
detailed  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers."  On  Acts  viii,  38: 
"  Philip  seems  to  have  taken  up  water  with  his  hands  and 
poured  it  copiously  on  the  eunuch's  head.''  Mark  vii,  4, 
he  urges,  ^^is  not  implied  immersion." 

7.  Olshausen,  one  of  the  greatest  and  best  commenta- 
tors of  any  age,  and  the  most  impartial  and  profound,  says 
on  John  iii,  25-27,  ''  The  dispute  was  on  baptism — Jcatha- 
rismos,  equivalent  to  baptisma  (baptism)."  Mark  vii,  4: 
"Ablutions  of  all  sorts,  among  the  rest  those  applicable 
to  the  priest  (Ex.  xxix,  18,  sq.  with  Heb.  ix,  10),  were 
common  among  the  Jews.  Baptismos  is  here  as  in  He- 
brews ix,  10,  ablution,  washing  generally;  klinai  here, 
couches  on  which  the  ancients  were  wont  to  recline  at 
meals."     Here  he  held  that  the  legal  sprinklings  of  John 

*Ibid.,  Acts  xvi,  11-40,  p.  134,  vol.  2. 


MODERN    COMMENTATORS    AND    CRITICS.  349 

iii,  25-27;  of  the  priests  (Ex.  xxix,  4,  etc.),  were  the 
"diverse  baptisms"  of  Paul  (Heb.  ix,  10).  That  the 
couches  of  dining  were  baptized  as  the  Jews  did  —  by 
affusion.  Again,  on  Acts  ii,  he  concludes  the  three  thou- 
sand were  baptized  by  sprinkling  —  "The  difficulty  can 
only  be  removed  by  supposing  that  they  already  employed 
mere  sprinkling/'  etc.  (vol.  4,  383). 

8.  Gerhard,  of  whom  the  late  most  scholarly  Tholuck 
says,*  "The  most  learned,  and  with  the  learned,  the 
most  beloved  among  the  heroes  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy," 
says,  "Whether  a  man  is  baptized  by  immersion  into 
water,  or  by  sprinkling,  or  applying  the  water  to  him,  it 
is  the  same"  (Doc.  Theol.  ix,  137). 

9.  Eeinhard:  "Earthly  or  perceptible,  pure,  natural 
water  in  which  a  person  is  immersed,  or  with  which  he  is 
partially  sprinkled,  is  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ." 
(Dogmat.  pp.  570-572).     Also— 

10.  Carpzovif  "Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  in 
itself  means  a  washing,  in  whatever  way  performed, 
whether  by  immersion  in  water,  or  by  aspersion.  .  .  It  is 
not  restricted  to  immersion  or  aspersion;  hence  it  has 
been  a  matter  of  indifference  from  the  beginning  whether 
to  administer  baptism  by  immersion  or  by  pouring  of 
water"  (Issagoge,  p.  1085). 

11.  A.  Clark:  "AVere  the  people  dipped  or  sprinkled? 
for  it  is  certain  baj^to  and  baptidzo  mean  both."  J  The 
same  in  substance  he  says  on  Mark  vii,  4;  Mark  x,  IG  ; 
Acts  xvi,  32.  He  considers  Romans  vi,  4,  refers  to  im- 
mersion among  Jews  in  proselyte  baptism,  but  that  John 

*  In  Herzog's  Cyclop. 

t  Carpzov  ranks  among  the  most  learned,  along  with  the  Buxtorfs, 
Lightfoots,  Pococks,  etc. 
I  On  Matthew  iii,  6. 


350  BAPTISM. 

baptized  by  sprinkling  as  well  as  those  under  the  apostles 
most  generally. 

12.  Lightfoot:  ^^  The  word  therefore,  baptis7nous  {wash- 
ings),  applied  to  all  these  [people,  Pharisees,  and  all  the 
Jews  (verse  3),  vessels,  beds  of  Mark  vii,  4],  properly 
and  strictly,  is  not  to  be  taken  of  dipping  or  plunging, 
but,  in  respect  of  some  things,  of  washing  only,  and  in 
respect  of  others,  of  sprinkling  only.^^"^ 

13.  Archbishop  Kendrick  (Catholic)  has  been  mis- 
quoted so  often,  we  cite  him.  On  Hebrews  ix,  10 — "  Bap- 
tism"— he  says,  "St.  Paul  calls  the  various  ablutions  of 
the  old  law,  many  of  which  were  by  aspersions,  divers 
baptisms.  .  .  Thus  it  appears  manifest  that  the  term  was 
in  his  time  used  indiscriminately  for  all  kinds  of  ablu- 
tion" (On  Baptism,  p.  188).  See  him  also  page  322J  on 
Patristic  Baptism — Augustine. 

14.  J.  Wesley:  "The  Greek  word  [baptize]  means  in- 
differently either  washing  or  sprinkling."  Mark  vii,  4. 
He  argues  that  John  did  not  immerse  but  sprinkled  the 
multitudes  he  baptized ;  and  the  three  thousand  and  five 
thousand  in  Acts,  as  well  as  the  jailer,  Saul,  etc.  were  all 
baptized  by  affusion.  He  holds  that  Hebrews  x,  22, 
alludes  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling; 
while  Romans  vii,  4 ;  Colossians  ii,  12,  allude  to  immersion 
as  an  ancient  practice.     See  his  note  on  Colossians  ii,  12. 

15.  Beza,  sixteenth  century.  The  way  Beza  is  habitu- 
ally quoted  may  be  seen  in  the  various  immersion  works, 
as  he  is  the  favorite  authority.^-     Now,  Avhile  Beza  says 

*  Horse  Hebraicse  et  Tal.  ii,  419,  Eng.  Ed.  In  edition  of  1658,  vol.  1, 
in  Evang.  Marci  vii,  4,  Vox  ergo  ^aTz-iciiov^  ad  hcec  omnia  applicata,  2)ro- 
prie  et  stricte  non  acdpienda  est  de  iinctione  aut  immersione,  sed  quoad 
nonnulla  de  latione  idniiim,  et  quoad  nonmdla  de  aspersio7ie  tantum. 

tSee  Graves-Ditzler  Debate,  p.  520-1,  as  an  example — same  as  in  all 
standard  authorities  by  immersionist'^. 


MODERN    COMMENTATORS   AND   CRITICS.  ^Vol 

a  part  of  what  tliey  cite,  yet  they  stop  short  and  leave  him 
testifying  for  their  views  and  against  affusion  as  baptism, 
just  as  they  do  Terretinus,  Vossius,  Witsius,  Stephanus, 
Scapula,  etc.,  etc.  Here  is  what  Beza  says:  ^'Baptidzes- 
thai  in  this  place  (Mark  vii,  4)  is  more  than  cherniptem 
[wash  the  hands],  because  that  seems  to  be  understood  of 
tlie  whole  body,  this  merely  of  the  hands.  Neither  in- 
deed does  baptidzein  signify  to  wash  except  by  consequence. 
For  properly  it  expresses  immersion  for  the  purpose  of 
dyeing/'  He  then  refers  to  Matthew  iii,  11,  where  he  de- 
fines it  not  only  by  '' mergere/^  to  sink,  but  by  '^  madeja- 
cere,''  to  make  wet,  and  ^'  tlngere/^  to  wet,  to  dye.  That 
it  answers  to  the  Hebrew  tabhal  rather  than  to  rachats  and 
is  used  to  express  washing  and  cleansing.^  Like  Schleus- 
ner,  Stokius,  Witsius,  Suicer,  etc.  he  believes  wash  was 
a  derived  meaning  from  immerse  as  the  classic  meaning 
most  in  use.  But,  like  them,  he  held  that  from  wash, 
cleanse,  it  came  to  mean  washing,  cleansing,  without  re- 
gard to  mode,  and  that  affusion  Avas  practiced  by  the 
apostles  for  baptism,  as  the  following  words  Avill  shoAv: 
Acts  i,  5:  ^'John  indeed  baptized  with  water.''  Beza 
says  on  this  passage,  "  With  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  prep. 
en  is  rightly  omitted.  ...  As  if  Christ  had  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  you,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  baptize 
you.  But  here  is  a  double  antithesis,  if  I  mistake  not, 
.  .  .  when  from  the  one  [Father]  emanated  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  other  is  of  the  water  poured  by  John  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  falling  upon  the   apostles,  which  mission 

^  Ut  lavcmdi  et  abhtendi,  et  loHonis  vocabrdo  (Beza's  Annot.  on  Matt, 
iii,  11,  folio  ed.  1598).  What  he  says  on  amad  is,  in  the  above,  that 
amad  dioe%  not  differ  from  it.  But  he  there  had  .said  lapiidzo  meant 
"  madefacere;'  to  moisten,  make  wet;  to  Avash,  then,  M^as  as  above  shown. 
It  reads,  '^madefacere  et  mergere;'  and  of  that  coming  to  mean  hamad 
\_amad'},  quo  utuntur  Syri  pro  haptizare. 


352  BAPTISM. 

of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  pouring  [of  the  water  by  John] 
is  called  by  metaphor  baptism.'^  He  thinks  this  "an- 
tithesis is  better  understood/^*  Here  Beza  shows  that 
he  held  the  old  theory  that,  first,  baptidzo,  in  classic 
usage  generally  meant  immerse ;  second,  as  usual  with 
them  all,  he  finds  that  meaning  to  it  in  the  later  Greek 
writers,  Plutarch  being  his  first  citation;  third,  that  it 
came  to  mean  wash,  cleanse,  by  consequence ;  fourth,  that 
from  wash,  cleanse,  it  came  to  mean  wash,  cleanse  with- 
out regard  to  mode;  fifth,  that  pouring  became  the  set- 
tled practice  of  baptism  even  in  John's  day. 

16.  Terretinus,  seventeenth  century,  a  great  author- 
ity, is  cited  for  immersion  constantly.  Like  Beza,  he  held 
that  baptidzo  properly  meant  to  immerse  in  the  classics  of 
the  age  of  Plutarch,  etc.  That  it  came  to  mean  to  wash, 
to  cleanse,  by  consequence.  We  need  not  cite  all  he  says, 
but  admit  it  to  the  full.  Yet  he  goes  on  to  say,  "There 
are  not  wanting  various  reasons  for  sprinkling  also :  (1) 
Because  the  word  baptiamou  and  the  verb  baptidzesthai  are 
not  spoken  [or  used]  merely  of  immersion,  but  also  of 
sprinkling  (Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38)/'t  Then  follow  five 
arguments  to  sustain  his  position,  urging  that  in  the  apos- 
tolic day,  as  on  Pentecost,  etc.  the  baptism  was  by  sprink- 
ling. 

17.  Witsius,  A.D.  1685,  held  that  "it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  immersion  was  so  necessary  to  baptism  as  that 
the  rite  could  not  be  performed  by  perfusion  or  sprinkling. 

■*  Johannes  quidem  vos  haptizavit,  sed  spiritus  sancius  vos  hapUzabit. 
Hie  autem  est  antithesis  duplex^  ni  jailor,  una  Johannis  cum  Christo  vel 
Deo  Patre,  nam  post  (SaTrri^fjaedE,  id  est  haptizahimini  .  .  .  altera  est 
aquce  a  Joanne  effuse,  ei  spiritus  sancti  Apostolis  mitiendi ;  qucB  spiV' 
Hits  sancti  et  effuslo  hie  translatitie  vocatur  haptism.us. 

tRaiiones  etiam,  pro  aspertione  non  desunt  varice;  (1)  Quia  vox  jSaTrna' 
jiov  et  verhuiin  f^aKri^iGdui,  non  tantum  de  immersione  diciiur,  sed  et  de 
aspersione  (Mark  vii,  4;  Luke  xi,  38). 


MODERN    COMMENTATORS    AND    CRITICS.  o-Jo 

.  .  .  It  is  more  probable  that  the  three  thousand  who 
Avere  baptized  in  one  day  (Acts  ii,  41),  were  perfused  or 
sprinkled  with  water,  than  immersed.'^  He  then  gives  his 
reasons,  and  adds  again,  ''  Neither  is  it  credible  that  Cor- 
nelius, and  Lydia,  and  the  jailer,  baptized  in  private 
liouses  along  with  their  families,  had  baptisteries  in  which 
they  could  be  wholly  immersed.  Vossius  brings  examples 
of  perfusion  from  antiquity,  etc/'  ^^  (2)  ''  It  is  granted  that 
baptidzein  properly  signifies  to  sink,  yet  also  more  gen- 
erally it  is  used  for  any  kind  of  cleansing,  as  Luke  xi,  28/' 
Here  he  cites  authorities  again,  and  goes  on  to  cite  Scrip- 
ture for  baptism,  '^for  pouring,"  and  "  for  sprinkling." 

18.  Vossius  holds  the  same  views  as  tlie  above,  and  need 
not  be  further  cited,  since  Witsius  cites  him  for  his  views. 
Vossius  gives  as  a  leading  New  Testament  meaning  of 
baptidzo,  "To  sprinkle,  or  wash  the  body  of  any  one  sac- 
mmentally  (Matt,  iii,  ll)."t 

The  list  could  be  indefinitely  extended,  but  to  what 
good  purpose?  These  are  the  masters,  the  others  merely 
repeat.  But  these  authors,  by  extensively  applying  their 
views  of  baptidzoj  show  how  recklessly  immersionists  have 

-Hermanni  Witsi,  .  .  .  "De  (Economia  Feed.  Dei,  1685,  p.  672,  xiv,  6, 
Non  tamen  existamandum  est,  adeo  ad  baptisrmim  necessariam  esse  im- 
mersionem,  ut  perfusione  vel  aspersione  rite  peragi  non  possit.  Nam  et 
pe7"fusio  ac  adspersio  hahent  quo  se  tueantur.  1.  Non  si  a2>osiolos  mersisse 
comperiamus,  eo  riiwn  hunc  semper  observasse  consequitur.  Probabllius 
est,  eos  ter  mille,  qui  una  die  bapiizabantur  (Acts  ii,  1),  aqua  perfusos  vel 
adspersos,  qudm  mersos  esse.  .  .  .  Neque  credibile  est,  Cornelium  et  Ly- 
diam,  et  commentariensem,  in  pHvatis  cedibus  una  cum  snis,  baptizatos, 
baptisteria  ad  manum  habuisse,  quibus  toti  immergi  potuerint.  Perfu- 
sionis  exemjila  ex  antiquitaie  attulit  Vossius  Disput.  1.  De  Baptis.  Th., 
ix,  quae,  eadem  ordine,  dissimulato  tamen  Vossii  nomhiee,  Lexico  suo  Anti- 
quitatum  Eccles.  p.  66,  inseruit  Joshua  Arndius.  2.  Licet  (SaiTTiCeiv  pro- 
prie  signijicet  mergere,  tamen  etiam  generalius  usupatiir  de  quolicunqnc 
ablutione;  ut  Luc.  xi,  38,  etc.  .  .  .  De  Superfusione  .  .  .  De  Adspersione.^ 

f  Vossius,  "■Adspergere  sen  ahluere  corpus  alicuijus  sacrementaltter" 
(Matt,  iii,  11). 
23 


;].j4  IJAl'TISM. 

used  their  assertions,  and  bow  wildly  and  viciously  they 
interpreted  the  old-school  lexicographers. 

]  9-21.  Drs.  Jameson,  Fausset,  and  Brown,  in  their  crit- 
ical commentary,  adopt  Olshausen's  words  on  Acts  ii,  41, 
just  quoted,  and  even  on  Philip  and  the  eunuch  adopt 
the  view  of  Bloomfield,  Baumoarten,  and  others,  saying, 
'^  Probably  laving  the  water  upon  him"  (Acts  viii,  38). 

22.  Wall,  constantly  misrepresented,  says,  "  The  word 
haptidzo  in  the  Scriptures  signifies  to  wash  in  general,  with- 
out determining  the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of  washing." 
He  urges  its  use  in  Scripture  is  not  that  of  secular  authors. 
Then  says  of  the  Scripture  use  of  haptidzo  that  it  applies  to 
such  washing  '^as  is  by  pouring  or  rubbing  water  on  the 
thing  or  person  washed,  or  some  part  of  it"  (vol.  1,  536-7, 
ed.  1862,  by  H.  Cullon,  London).  He  then  quotes  Mark  vii, 
where  they  are  to  wash  their  hands.  He  cites  2  Kings 
iii,  11,  to  ])rove  it  was  by  water  poured  on  them.  He  then 
says,  '^  Now  this  washing  of  the  hands  is  called  by  St.  Luke 
the  baptizing  of  a  man"  (Luke  xi,  38).  Again,  "And 
the  divers  w^ashings  of  the  Jews  arc  called  diaphoroi  hap- 
iismoi — diverse  baptisms  (Heb.  ix,  10).  Of  which  some  were 
by  bathing,  others  by  sprinkling  (Num.  viii,  2),"  etc.  On 
patristic  baptisms  we  cite  only  one  out  of  many  he  cites 
(vol.  2,  p.  520):  "  Origen  here  does  plainly  call  pouring 
water  on  a  thing  baptizing  it."  He  then  cites  the  baptism 
of  the  altar,  given  far  more  fully  in  thisw^ork.  Wall  does 
complain  bitterly  of  parties  Avho  merely  touched  the  child 
with  a  few  drops  of  water — opposes  such  sprinkling,  but 
proves  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
are  baptism  according  to  the  Bible  and  the  fathers. 

23.  Lange,  held  as  an  immersionist,  says,  on  John  i,  26, 
"  ^  I  baptize,'  etc.  ...  I  baptize  only  with  w^ater ;  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  reserved  to  the  Messiah.  .   .   .  The 


MODERN    CO^IMENTATORS    AND    CRITICS.  oOO 

Messiah  is  the  proper  Baptist  of  the  Prophets,  and  his 
[the  questioner]  implied  assertion — your  interpretation  of 
Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25 — is  false.  But  because  this  true  Baptist 
is  here,  I  with  my  water  baptism  prepare  him  for  baptiz- 
ing with  the  Spirit/' 

Here  Lange  holds,  with  Rossenmiiller,  Havernick, 
Bleek,  etc.,  that  the  '^sprinkle  with  clean  water''  of  Ezekiel 
xxxvi,  26,  was  held  by  all  Jews  as  baptism. 

Again,  on  John  iii,  5 — "born  of  water" — Lange  refers 
to  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25  —  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you" — as  the  baptism  implied,  as  well  as  to  Isaiah  i, 
16;  Jeremiah  xxxiii,  8,  etc.  [on  John  iii,  5]. 

24.  M.  Stuart  is  so  often  so  garbled  as  to  misrepresent 
him  altogether,  which  necessitates  a  long  quotation  from 
him:  "We  have  also  seen,  in  Nos,  2,  5,  6,  of  examples 
from  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  that  the  Avord  baptidzo 
sometimes  means  to  ivashj^nd  bapto  to  moisten,  to  wet,  or 
bedew.  There  is,  then,  no  absolute  certainty,  from  usage, 
that  the  word  baptidzo,  when  applied  to  designate  the  rite 
of  baptism,  means  of  course  to  immerge  or  plunge' '  (p.  76). 
Dr.  Graves's  ed.  1856,  p.  73,  he  had  proved  that  baptidzo 
was  employed  "to  designate  the  idea  of  copious  affusion  or 
effusion,  in  a  figurative  manner."  Page  84  he  says  of  bap- 
tidzo, *'Both  the  classic  use  and  that  of  the  Septuagint 
show  that  washing  and  copious  affusion  are  sometimes 
signified  by  this  word."  Page  158— all  in  italics—"  No  in- 
junction is  any  where  given  in  the  New  Testament  respect- 
ing the  manner  in  which  this  rite  shall  be  performed." 
"  My  belief  is  that  we  do  obey  the  command  to  baptize 
when  we  do  it  by  aifusion  or  sprinkling"  (p.  195). 

On  page  185  he  urges  that  Baptists  rely  "on  the  exe- 
gesis of  the  fathers  and  the  ancient  churches.  New  Tes- 
tament usasie  of  the  word  in  cases  not  relevant  to  this  rite 


3o6  BAPTISM. 

clearly  does  not  entitle  you  to  such  a  conclusion  with  any 
confidence."  Like  Terretinus  and  others,  he  refers  to  the 
primitive  and  ancient  church  as  distinct  from  the  apostolic 
or  New  Testament  church.  He  believes  the  three  thou- 
sand (Acts  ii,  41)  and  the  five  thousand,  as  well  as  Saul, 
the  jailer,  etc.,  were  all  baptized  by  aifusion,  and  that  Ro- 
mans vi,  3,  4,  does  not  refer  to  water  baptism  and  was  not 
immersion. 

25.  Dr.  Barnes,  being  so  often  cited  by  immersionists, 
says  of  baptidzo,  "Fourth.  It  can  not  be  proved  from  an 
examination  of  the  passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments that  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion  ever  was 
connected  with  the  word  or  that  it  ever  in  any  case 
occurred"^  (Notes  on  Matthew  iii,  6). 

26.  To  these  could  be  added  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Haver- 
nick,  Kiihnoel,  Bleek,  Henstenburg,  Rossenmiiller,  Schaaf, 
Watson,  Geo.  Hill,  Doddridge,  John  Locke;  but  it  is  a 
waste  of  time  and  space  to  cite  so  many.  But  we  close 
with  the  illustrious  and  renowned  Lightfoot,  the  greatest 
luminary  in  these  matters  in  that  century  of  learning,  the 
seventeenth.  Luke  iii,  16:  "I  baptize  you,"  etc.  "These 
seem  to  have  been  the  words  that  he  used  in  sprinkling 
or  applying  the  water:  'I  baptize  thee,'"  etc.  "^Witli 
water/  "  in  the  Greek  it  is  indifferently  with  or  in,  answer- 
able to  the  Hebrew  preposition  either  local  or  instru- 
mental." "So  it  is  almost  as  little  to  be  doubted  that 
when  they  were  there  [into  the  river]  he  threw  and  sprink- 
led the  water  upon  them."  AVorks,  vol.  4,  p,  279,  Lon- 
don, 1822.  Of  Christ's  baptism  he  says,  "He  went  into 
the  water,  had  water  sprinkled  on  him"  (Ibid.,  p.  305). 

*But  when  he  precedes  this  by  saying  that  •*  baptize  signifies  orig- 
inally to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  stain^  he  puts  himself  along  with  the  careless 
class  we  have  had  to  criticise  so  often  ;  for  all  know  that  baptidzo  has  no 
viK'h  moaning,  Init  hapto  lias. 


MODERN    COMMENTATORS   AND   CRITICS.  357 


CYCLOPEDIAS. 

Dr.  Graves  and  A.  Campbell  parade  the  testimony  of 
cyclopedias.  We  could  parade  a  number  also,  but  as  they 
merely  copy  each  other,  some  abridging,  the  ten  Dr. 
Graves  (Debate,  pp.  510,  511)  adduces  merely  following 
Wall  in  the  main.  But  the  first  one  he  quotes  (Edinburgh 
Encyclopedia),  and  most  elaborately,  states  what  every 
scholar  versed  in  the  facts  knows  to  be  utterly  untrue 
when  it  says,  "  In  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  held  at  West- 
minster in  1643,  it  Avas  keenly  debated  whether  immersion 
or  sprinkling  should  be  adopted;  twenty-five  voted  for 
sprinkling  and  twenty-four  voted  for  immersion,"  etc. 
He  then  tells  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  etc.  This  is  utterly  un- 
true as  narrated.  The  facts  are,  the  only  debated  question 
Avas,  Avhether,  in  addition  to  sprinkling,  ministers  should 
be  allowed  to  immerse  where  parties  preferred  or  whether 
they  should  not  be  so  allowed,  and  that  was  defeated.  It 
was  not  debated  whether  they  should  allow  of  sprinkling 
or  immersion.  As  Dr.  G.'s  first  authority  so  falsifies  these 
well-known  historic  facts,  we  pass  all  the  rest. 


3o8  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

co^X"LUSIO^^ 

And  now,  dear  reader,  with  the  f raits  of  years  of  most 
painful  study  and  research  before  you,  in  all  fairness  and 
kindness,  with  a  serene  trust  and  earnest  hope  that  this 
controversy  will  speedily  terminate,  we  do  most  solemnly 
and  in  the  fear  of  God  arraign  before  the  bar  of  all  these 
crushing  facts  our  immersionist  friends,  and  openly  charge 
them  Avith  the  awful  responsibility  of  the  divisions  and 
rents  in  the  body  of  Christ,  the  strifes  and  bad  blood  that 
have  been  too  often  engendered  by  their  narrow  proscrip- 
tions and  intolerant  aggressions.  For  years  they  have 
waged  a  dogmatic  war  all  along  the  ecclesiastical  lines. 
At  times,  when  infidelity  and  crime  were  going  hand  in 
hand  together  through  the  land,  smiting  and  threatening 
the  very  stability  of  society  itself  and  sapping  all  the 
foundations  of  virtue,  they  have  draAvn  oif  from  the  al- 
most shattered  and  bleeding  columns  of  the  struggling 
army  of  truth  and  actually  poured  in  a  volley  upon  the 
worn  flanks  of  the  advancing  yet  reeling  columns  of  the 
holy  cause.  In  the  fearful  struggles  of  the  great  Refor- 
mation they  turned  against  the  heroic  Luther  and  chilled 
the  warm  zeal  of  whole  States.  They  split  the  Reforma- 
tion. They  filled  the  land  with  civil  wars.  They  almost 
shattered  the  columns  on  which  all  Europe  depended  for 
deliverance  from  the  thraldom  and  tyranny  of  besotted 
Rome.     Even  in  the  present  age  their  historians  boast  ot 


CONCLLTISIOX.  '60V 

this  crime  against  society  and  the  world.  Starting  out 
with  a  cause  so  wretched,  so  destitute  of  fact,  reason,  or 
liistoric  support,  they  have  felt  compelled  from  the  start  to 
garble  authorities,  misquote,  interpolate,  and  blur  and  blot 
every  record  they  have  touched  in  history  or  literature. 
Hence  it  has  been  most  common  for  their  partisan  writers  to 
add  to  these  offenses  the  crime  of  personal  defamation  and 
slander  against  all  who  boldly  deny  to  them  an  entire 
infallibility  on  these  questions.  To  break  the  force  of 
exposure  and  opposition  they  often  carry  their  opponent 
through  all  the  distorting  organs  of  detraction  and  abuse, 
while  men  who  were  besotted  with  prejudice  and  steeped 
in  ignorance  are  held  up  as  gods  if  they  but  support  their 
cause. 

To  add  to  the  evil,  many  of  them  have  aimed  with  too 
much  success  to  elevate  a  single  command  that  had  nevei* 
before  been  hinted  by  Christ,  never  insisted  on  in  the  case 
of  blessing  any  mortal  while  among  the  people  over  three 
years,  into  the  old  Pharisaical  idea  of  ^^the  great  com- 
mandment," while  they  boldly  proceed,  like  their  predeces- 
sors in  ecclesiastical  narrowness,  to  unchurch  ainvho  fail 
to  repeat  their  shibboleth.  They  have  proceeded  to  blur 
and  blot  the  simple,  beautiful  rite  instituted  by  Christ, 
until  the  symbol  of  life  is  distorted  into  the  supposed  like- 
ness of  death.  Baptism  is  a  door.  It  is  a  death.  It  is  a 
burial.  It  is  a  resurrection.  It  is  a  seal  of  pardon.  It 
is  a  seal  of  the  covenant.  It  is  an  initiatory  rite.  It  is  for 
remission.  It  is  regeneration  with  others.  Verily,  is  it 
not  a  god  ?  They  have  so  covered  up  the  beautiful  sym- 
bolism of  this  rite  with  the  huge  and  indigestible  mass  of 
the  debris  of  the  old  and  wornout  rubbish  of  antiquity  and 
heathen  superstition  that  it  is  a  task  from  which  a  Hercules 
would   have  fled,  to   relieve    it  of  the   rotten  mass,  and 


360  BAPTISM. 

would  have  regarded  the  Atigeaii  stable  as  a  breakfast 
spell.  Every  fact  is  distorted  that  bears  on  the  subject. 
To  such  a  bold  fanaticism  have  some  of  them  come  that 
they  suppose  the  Eternal  will  mercifully  forgive  men  who 
have  spurned  his  offers,  insulted  his  messengers,  crucified 
his  Son,  trampled  on  his  truth,  yet  will  save  them  and  par- 
don them  of  all  crimes  on  confessing  that  they  believe 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God — a  fact  that  they  never  doubted — ' 
had  believed  all  the  time — and  suffer  themselves  to  be 
dipped  in  a  pond  of  water !  Yet  he  will  not  forgive  you 
though  you  believe  his  whole  AVord,  pray  daily,  live  as 
spotless  as  a  Paul,  and  fill  the  land  with  the  praise  of  your 
good  deeds  it'  you  fail  of  a  dip  of  water! 

It  is  the  duty  of  all  to  obey  God  in  all  things.  It  is 
the  duty  of  all  to  pray,  to  be  baptized,  to  keep  his  com- 
mandments, pay  their  debts,  be  charitable.  But  it  is  rank 
idolatry  to  set  up  this  rite  to  be  honored  and  adored  as 
above  all  his  commandments.  Our  Gospel  is  not  bound. 
Let  the  broad  and  noble  principles  of  an  enlightened 
and  elevating  Christianity  expand  our  minds,  enlarge  the 
circle  of  our  thoughts,  and  redeem  us  from  evil. 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

"^non  near  Salim," 26,  66-67 

Altar  of  Elijah  baptized, 273 

Amad,  Baptist  quotations  on, 314 

Lexicons  on, 314-319 

Literature  of, 322-325 

Syriac  for  baptize, 314 

Versions  on, 315-320 

Apo,  from,  not  out  of, 31 

Arabic  versions  on  baptism, 328 

Aristotle,  haptidzo  in, 260 

Authors,  blunders  of,      1-3,  6 

Baptidzo,  lexicons  on,      138-167 

Ancient  versions  on, 311 

Authorities  on, 347 

Classic  usage  of, 88,  217 

How  rendered  by  immersionistS; 101 

How  translated  (see  Translations). 

In  later  Greek 263 

In  the  house  of  its  friends, 203 

N.  T.  vise  of, 88,  91,  94,  95 

O.  T.  and  N.  T.  sense  of, 199 

Patristic  usage  of, 271-289 

Philology  of, 168 

Primary  meaning  of, 226,  301 

Why  not  translate, 356 

Baptism,  administrator  of, 11 

Buried  by,  into  death, 46-51 

Design  of, 11, 16-22 

Eunuch's,  the, 32 

Five  thousand  and  three  thousand, 35 

(361) 


362  INDEX. 

Baptism,  mode  of  (see  Laver,  Bapto,  Baptidzo,  Translations,  etc). 

Origin  of, 15-21 

Symbolic  import  of, 72,  73 

With  blood, 282 

With  tears, 282 

Baptists  in  harmony, 210 

Bapto,  classic  occurrences  of, 110-122 

Fathers  and  translations  on, 122-125 

In  Daniel, 122 

In  N.  T.  and  Septuagint, 22 

Lexicons  oYi, 106,  107 

Philology  of, 127 

Primary  meaning  of, 126-137 

Koot  of  baptidzo, 126 

Beza  correctly  reported,      213 

Born  of  water, 52 

Bury,  meaning  of,  in  Scriptures, 47 

Ceremonial  cleansing,     60 

Changes  in  meaning, 88 

Classic  and  N.  T.  Greek, 97 

Classics,  use  of  baptism  in, 76,  217,  234 

Codex  Sinaiticus,      329 

Commentators  and  critics,  modern, 347 

Conant  on  baptidzo, 263 

Conclusion, 358 

Convenience, 55 

Criticisms,  ancient — errors, 213 

Cyclopedias, 357 

Dale,  errors  of, 221 

Decency  in  baptism, 55,  56 

Dip  not  immerse, 243 

^/s,  to,  into,  at,  etc., 26,30,31 

En,  with,  and  in, 27,  52-55 

Epi,  at,  to 29 

Facts,  summary  of, 234-255 

First  occurrence  of  baptism,      308 

Frequent  baptisms  (washings),      64,65,66 

Gasala,  Arabic  for  baptizo,  etc.  (see  Translations). 

Graves,  Dr.  J.  B.,  blunders  and  perversions  of,  8,  10,  49,  90,  91,  98,  189- 

141,  143,  150-155. 
Greek,  classic  and  N.  T., 88 


INDEX.  363 

Health, 55 

History  of  baptism,  facts  on, 284 

Immersion,  arguments  for, 11-14 

Origin  of, 285 

To  sink, 169 

Jordan,  swift, 39-43 

Josephus  on  laver, 63 

Kabas, 71 

Laver,  baptism  at, 57-69 

Laws  of  science  ignored, 232 

Learning  in  Dark  Ages,  revival  of,      76-87 

Lexicons, 76 

Greek,  on  bapto, 105 

Liddell  &  Scott's  Lexicon,  frequent  changes,  ....   155, 156, 157,  note. 

Louo,  wash,  pour,      342 

Maimonides  misquoted, 69-72 

Matar, 183 

Meanings,  primary  and  derived, 88 

Metaphorical  uses, 37 

Novatian,  baptism  of,      277 

Origin  and  design  of  baptism,      15 

Of  immersion, 285 

Patristic  Greek,  baptidzo  in, 271-289 

Baptism, 279 

Pentateuch,  "wash"  in,      60 

Peshito-Syriac,      315 

Philology, 168 

Principles  of, 171 

Science  of  language, 173,  176 

Planted,  what  implied  by, 47 

Pouring, 38 

Primary  meaning,    . 91-93 

Rachats,  to  "  pour  out," 71 

Eoots  and  their  meanings, 92 

Saul,  baptism  of, 29 

Shataph,  Gesenius's  definition  of,      71 

Solomon's  temple,  laver  in, 61 

Sprinkle  or  touch  baptizes,     ....        301-305 

Stain,  dye, 133 

Standard  folio  lexicons, 292 

Symbolic  import  of  baptism, 72 


364  INDEX, 

Syriac,  the, 311 

Versions, .320 

Tahhal,  Hebrew  for  bajHidzo, 290,  306 

Primary  meaning  of, 71 

Targum  of  Jonathan, 19,  63 

Tingo 246 

Drs.  Graves  and  Toy  on, 250 

Jerome  on, 251 

Lexicons  on, 252 

Translations  or  Versions, 311,328-337 

^thiopic, 330 

Arabic, 328 

Basmuric, 332 

Coptic, 332 

Egyptian, 332 

German,      335 

Itala, 330,  334 

James's,  made  by  immersionists, 86 

Persic, 333 

Sahidic, 333 

Syriac, 311 

Vulgate,  Jerome's 334 

Tertullian  first  to  name  dipping  for  baptism, 281 

Unscientific  methods, 221 

Versions  (see  Translations). 

Wash,     199-202,  338 

Washing  familiar  to  all  people, 22 

Words  change  meaning, 88 


DATE    DUE 

y-i—*™*^- 

GAYLORH 

PRINTED  IN  USA 

